Momentum Transfer in WTC

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Therefore, these observations must be explained.
Click to expand...

I have an explanation: Your observations are mistaken. But you don't have to take my word for it. Call the men and women who spent months sifting through the rubble. Heck, drive there and talk to them in person.

Taylor Recycling Facility, LLC
350 Neelytown Road
Montgomery, New York 12549

Tel: 845.457.4021
Fax: 845.457.4003

These guys aren't the government. You can talk to some of the very employees who sorted non-microscopic rubble and found all sort of non-metalic debris that survived.

I am told Jim Taylor and his son are very approachable guys. Their email is: Jim Taylor - [email protected]
James Taylor, III - [email protected]

Their office is less than 20 miles from my house and I will be glad to give you turn by turn directions.

Now, I would never naysay a person's theory without offering a better theory that fits all of the evidence. And I won't change that policy today. I have a fully-formed theory of how the towers were brought down that explains all observed phenomena, obeys all physical laws and is completely self-consistent:

On the morning of September 11, 2001, two 767s, American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, flew into buildings 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Don't sell yourself short. There are many perceptive and experienced individuals here.

I just get awfully tired asking the same questions over and over again.
Click to expand...

eeeek! I meant in terms of scientific balloon pricking, where "you da bomb, man". If there's a serious discussion of Greening vs Brown, I want R.Mackey out there. If it's a troll with wishful thinking and addle-pated ideas.... that's another story.

If anyone felt I was disparaging any here, even accidentally, my humblest apologies. I'm an unabashed fan of the work of several of the JREF Debunking Squad. I'm a New Yorker (20+ years) living overseas and I had no friggin' idea what was going on with the CT nutbars until I stumbled upon this forum about four months ago when looking for something else, entirely.

The previous sentence, by the way, ought to give you a bit of perspective. There is literally no attention at all being paid over here to any of their nonsense. This is a home-grown hysteria. It doesn't play well overseas. I've taken to asking Ameircans over here what they think of the 911 conspiracies, and I usually get a response like, "Oh? Is there some kind of Oswald/Kennedy thing about 911?"....

Sorry for the derail. Back on topic...

What is your particular theory, Truthseeker? We're seven hours into this, and we still have nothing to hang our collective hats on.
 
Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you are wrong that the core columns of the towers were not cross braced. Yes, they were, all the pictures show it.

I have indeed stated my evidence for pulverization. Apparently Kausel made the same observations, as he used this word too.

Arkan, criticizing Kausel for attempting to convince us that fire can melt steel is not an ad hominem attack. It is a legitimate scientific point. He richly deserves to be criticized, I said nothing at all about his character.

Look, if a very tall building could "collapse" completely, the debris would be a tall pile in roughly a pyramid or cone shape. What we observe in this case is not that. We observe a 110 story tower disappear in 9 seconds (NIST's number, not exactly accurate but whatever), a mushroom cloud appears, and a crater that smolders for months.

Kent is correct that I refer to Hoffman's calcs for particle size, and energy requirements for the expansion of the dust clouds.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
..Arkan, criticizing Kausel for attempting to convince us that fire can melt steel is not an ad hominem attack. It is a legitimate scientific point. He richly deserves to be criticized I suggest a dictionary for you.
...
Click to expand...

You are attempting to discredit his points on the energy/pulverization of the building by attacking his statements on the fire/steel. Would you care to actually address any of the math/science that's been posted, or are you going to continue dodging anything of substance?

ETA: on the issue of floor-trusses/cross-bracing:
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf - figure 2-6 to 2-9

outrigger system
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf - figure 2-10, 2-19

floor failure
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf - figure 2-20 to 2-22

EETA:
Look, if a very tall building could "collapse" completely, the debris would be a tall pile in roughly a pyramid or cone shape.
Click to expand...
Evidence that this is the only outcome?
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you are wrong that the core columns of the towers were not cross braced. Yes, they were, all the pictures show it.

I have indeed stated my evidence for pulverization. Apparently Kausel made the same observations, as he used this word too.

Arkan, criticizing Kausel for attempting to convince us that fire can melt steel is not an ad hominem attack. It is a legitimate scientific point. He richly deserves to be criticized, I said nothing at all about his character.

Look, if a very tall building could "collapse" completely, the debris would be a tall pile in roughly a pyramid or cone shape. What we observe in this case is not that. We observe a 110 story tower disappear in 9 seconds (NIST's number, not exactly accurate but whatever), a mushroom cloud appears, and a crater that smolders for months.

Kent is correct that I refer to Hoffman's calcs for particle size, and energy requirements for the expansion of the dust clouds.
Click to expand...

You're getting to be like Christophera. The pictures DO NOT prove anything. Those are supporting structures during construction. You have not itemized what you think are cross-braces as requested by R. Mackey. There are dozens of pictures on this very forum (many compliments of Christophera in his never-ending attempt to fit his foot in his mouth) that show various portions of the construction process. Why do you choose this one picture of a picture to support this ludicrous idea? Why do you not accept the various documents that show how the buildings were constructed?

What is your theory? The construction itself is a Big Lie? Get to the point, please. Please show us any evidence of carpet, curtain, floor or ceiling tile being powderized in any sort of demolition. There were such items in the Towers. I worked there!
 
fool queried
What is your particular theory, Truthseeker? We're seven hours into this, and we still have nothing to hang our collective hats on.
Click to expand...
I began this thread by asking if anyone had done calcs like Gordon Ross, except shown that collapse would continue, as opposed to Ross' conclusion.
None have emerged. I will review Mackey's critique as best I can, but I repeat that his credibilty would be restored if he would admit that the core columns were abundantly cross braced, horizontally and diagonally. Denying what the pictures show, and asking for pictures of the core "not during the construction" is, well, not very scientific.

I am not advancing a particular theory. Along the way i became interested if anyone had any evidence of significant amounts of non-metallic material which was not pulverized. People sent pictures of a land fill. It seems to me, based on the pix and vids, that most of the non-metallic mass was converted to a fine powder and moved great distances. It is hard to estimate what that would be on a percentage basis, so photographic evidence from ground zero would be helpful. Statements by workers is not helpful.
 
Last edited:
Please show us any evidence of carpet, curtain, floor or ceiling tile being powderized in any sort of demolition.
Click to expand...

OK.

h t t p://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/Tower%20Explodes.jpg

h t t p://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/mushroom.jpg

h t t p://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

Now, please show me significant carpet, curtain, floor, or ceiling tile that remained macro.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
fool queried

I began this thread by asking if anyone had done calcs like Gordon Ross, except shown that collapse would continue, as opposed to Ross' conclusion.
Click to expand...
No, what you have done is dismissed Dr. Greening out of hand, or because you feel that Ross' rebuttal is sufficient, dismissed Kausel's analysis, and dismissed other provided information.

None have emerged. I will review Mackey's critique as best I can, but I repeat that his credibilty would be restored if he would admit that the core columns were abundantly cross braced, horizontally and vertically.
Click to expand...
Whether R. Mackey agrees with you or not on the issue of the cross bracing is irrelevent to the discussion of pulverization.

Denying what the pictures show, and asking for pictures of the core "not during the construction" is, well, not very scientific.
Click to expand...
No, you provided one picture, and then a slew of claims without any substantiating/corroborating evidence.

I am not advancing a particular theory.
Click to expand...
Bulls hit your not.

Along the way i became interested if anyone had any evidence of significant amounts of non-metallic material which was not pulverized. People sent pictures of a land fill. It seems to me, based on the pix and vids, that most of the non-metallic mass was converted to a fine powder and moved great distances. It is hard to estimate what that would be on a percentage basis, so photographic evidence from ground zero would be helpful. Statements by workers is not helpful.
Click to expand...
Why are you dismissing any evidence that is not photographic in nature from ground zero? Do you dismiss cosmological evidence if it is not photographed by Hubble?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I am not advancing a particular theory.
Click to expand...

Well, that's not surprising. "I'm not advancing a theory, I'm just asking questions" is a common refuge. However, it is not scientific. We create a theory, test it, modify it if need be or abandon it for another theory. If you have no theory to test, then you have no point. You're just asking us to show that everything of every type is true. It's like learning addition in school and then saying, "Yes, but we don't know what 31+57 is because the teacher never showed us that particular problem. And, in any case, we'd still have open questions about 31+58."

It is hard to estimate what that would be on a percentage basis, so photographic evidence from ground zero would be helpful.
Click to expand...

The same has been provided here and in other threads. I personally posted a picture that showed much non-metalic debris.

Statements by workers is not helpful.
Click to expand...

Why the heck not? Are you arguing that John Quincy Adams didn't exist because we have no pictures of him? The statements of workers who saw him wandering around Washington, DC would seem to point to his having been: a) alive; and b) President.

I believe that the reason you say statements by workers are not helpful is because you know that if you interview actual witnesses, your questions will evaporate. And what fun is that?

ETA; To me, it would be a lot of fun because Taylor Recycling is right near a major outlet mall and I need a couple shirts.
 
Last edited:
No, what you have done is dismissed Dr. Greening out of hand, or because you feel that Ross' rebuttal is sufficient, dismissed Kausel's analysis, and dismissed other provided information.
Click to expand...
Greening: No, I find Ross persuasive. He says that even if Greenings criticisms are correct, it only delays the stoppage of the collapse by a fraction of a second.

Kausel: Kausel estimates the gravitaional potential energy, but does not estimate the energy sinks. He shifts immediately to editorializing with words like "small nuke" and so forth. Yes, there is a lot of GPE, but every chemical bond broken requires energy. So does the expansion of the dust cloud. So does the molten metal. All of this must come after considering the rate of fall. The closer to free-fall, the less energy available to do anything else. The attempts to quantify this (hoffman, Trumpman, Ross) seem to corroborate what is intuitively obvious, that is, absent explosives, there is not nearly enough energy to explain the observations.

I know intuition is not science, but when calculations corroborate intuition, it is pretty strong stuff.

The subject of this thread was (generally) the collapse of the towers, so NIST is not an authority at all, as they did not study the collapses.

Yes, observation (photos and videos) is preferred evidence over hearsay. That does not totally invalidate what people say. When hearsay agrees with observation, as in the case of the litany of eyewitnesses who saw, heard, felt and were horribly injured by explosions, then it is very compelling. When hearsay conflicts with observation, I tend to side with observation.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes, observation (photos and videos) is preferred evidence over hearsay. That does not totally invalidate what people say. When hearsay agrees with observation, as in the case of the litany of eyewitnesses who saw, heard, felt and were horribly injured by explosions, then it is very compelling. When hearsay conflicts with observation, I tend to side with observation.
Click to expand...

As a lawyer, I can tell you this: You are using the word hearsay wrong.

Those witnesses have independent, first-hand knowledge. They are not repeating back to us something that they heard another person say.
 
You guys are right. I am advancing a theory. I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to get me into the entire truth movement in one thread, which is too huge. In this thread, I am advancing the theory that a local structural failure on the 98th floor of a twin tower would not automatically lead to the type of complete destruction that we observed. To test this, I was asking for reference material specifically like Ross's paper. Calculations about momentum transfer. In other words, the stuff that NIST did not do.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I began this thread by asking if anyone had done calcs like Gordon Ross, except shown that collapse would continue, as opposed to Ross' conclusion.
Click to expand...
The answer is yes. Dr. Greening is the standard to beat. Ross's paper and rebuttal of Greening are both flawed. This was shown to you on Page 1.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
None have emerged. I will review Mackey's critique as best I can, but I repeat that his credibilty would be restored if he would admit that the core columns were abundantly cross braced, horizontally and diagonally. Denying what the pictures show, and asking for pictures of the core "not during the construction" is, well, not very scientific.
Click to expand...
I denied nothing. I asked you to answer the following questions,to verify that the picture you brought forth -- which is hardly blueprint quality -- reflected the state of the WTC towers when they were hit:
R.Mackey said:
I note your image was taken during construction -- and is of extremely low quality. Please answer these questions first:

1) Which cross-bracing elements are you referring to in your picture?

2) What evidence do you have that they were permanent, rather than temporary bracing needed for construction?

3) What material are those elements made of? Your photo is in sepiatone and appears to be photocopied.

4) How are these elements attached to the columns?
Click to expand...
You still have not answered. I must assume that you do not know.

I did not use such cross-bracing in my critique of Ross's paper because Ross didn't include such cross-bracing in his paper to begin with. Neither did Greening or the NIST report. Yet according to you, I'm the one who "denies" and is "unscientific." What a very strange process of investigation you must use.

Can you answer the above questions or not? Until you do, the onus is squarely on your shoulders.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
I am not advancing a particular theory. Along the way i became interested if anyone had any evidence of significant amounts of non-metallic material which was not pulverized. People sent pictures of a land fill. It seems to me, based on the pix and vids, that most of the non-metallic mass was converted to a fine powder and moved great distances. It is hard to estimate what that would be on a percentage basis, so photographic evidence from ground zero would be helpful. Statements by workers is not helpful.
Click to expand...
So you have no theory, and you're backpedaling. Do you understand why static pictures and TV-quality video are not good ways to estimate particles of "100 micron size?"

In light of this admission, were you lying or bluffing when you made the following estimate? From your earlier post:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized.
Click to expand...
Seems to me you estimated at high precision on a percentage basis before. I'd like you to explain the inconsistency of your estimate with your current statement.

In closing, complain about my "credibility" all you want, but at the end of the day, you still have (a) no argument and (b) no evidence. So far, you don't even have a way to establish credibility.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
You're correct that Ross does not get into the dissociation of the non-metallic mass of the towers. He has calculated that global collapse is not possible under the circumstance. Figuring in the other observaions, such as the pulverization, only makes the "gravity did it" explanation more absurd. I will make that a sepearate thread, and name it the "TruthSeeker Challenge". Perhaps there will be a reward.

Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river". I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"?

Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors?
Click to expand...


This is why nobody who understands construction, engineering and/or physics can take you people seriously - and few bother debating you. It's like trying to explain child psychology to a 1 year old. Kid might listen but he can't understand what he's being told - which makes it pointless. I am so gone........
 
Truthseeker1234 sounds a lot like an idiot in the DU dungeon who calls himself "petgoat". The same bluster and pretense to knowledge that he does not actually possess. The same inability to back up anything he says with facts or evidence when called upon them. The same CT talking points that petgoat spouts there. And the first few of of his posts here could have been taken verbatim from "petgoat" at DU. He loves Jones and waterboy Ryan, and he repeatedly yaks about "pulverization", "pyroclastic clouds", quotes Pataki as "proof" that there was nothing but dust, etc. etc. ad nauseum. He is downright religious about calling Steven Jones "Dr." He pretends to have scientific knowledge although he never actually exhibits any, never answers direct questions with anything remotely resembling expertise, and instead quotes conspiracy theorists and tries to change the subject in an effort to avoid admitting that he has no clue what he's talking about.

Just saying.

I'm not saying they are the same person, but they are obviously cut from the same CTer cloth and they are similarly well versed in pretense. The petgoat persona once tried to take on skeptics at Du and ended up making a complete and utter fool of himself. He actually claimed that anyone could control gravity and that he did so by ridiing his skateboard. No, really. He actually said that. It was hilarious.

Edit to add: I added a bunch more to this post but got an error message when I tried to post it and I'm too tired to try to recreate it - hmmmmmmm, must be a conspiracy to prevent me from posting what I really wanted to post. :D
 
Last edited:
Mackey said
Dr. Greening is the standard to beat. Ross's paper and rebuttal of Greening are both flawed. This was shown to you on Page 1.
Click to expand...

I began the thread by linking Greening. I have stated that I find Ross persuasive over Greening. I get that you disagree, but i am not avoiding this. I also note that Greening has backed off on some of his other claims, like spontaneous thermite, food for another thread perhaps.

Mackey wanted some answers
1) Which cross-bracing elements are you referring to in your picture?

2) What evidence do you have that they were permanent, rather than temporary bracing needed for construction?

3) What material are those elements made of? Your photo is in sepiatone and appears to be photocopied.

4) How are these elements attached to the columns?
Click to expand...

1) "It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced." http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

2) Observe the construction picture here

http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/core_2.jpg

Would they really use cross bracing as thick and heavy as shown here, only to tear it out after the floor assembly was in place? What evidence do you have that this horizontal and diagonal cross bracing was temporary? Last I knew, the actual drawings for WTC were secret. Have they now been released? A lot of people have been very anxious to see them for a long time.

3) They are made of structural steel. Notice how they are identical in color and appearance to the structural steel elements.

4) They are welded
 
LashL said:
Edit to add: I added a bunch more to this post but got an error message when I tried to post it and I'm too tired to try to recreate it - hmmmmmmm, must be a conspiracy to prevent me from posting what I really wanted to post. :D
Click to expand...

Nope, it was powderized! :D I clearly saw your additional words, but half-way here, right in mid-air, they just up and powderized.
 
Not to bring in the blitheringly obvious, but you seriously can't be advancing a theory that relies on POWDERIZED Debris doing the damage it did to 5, 6, and 7, are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom