IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Tags ae911truth , richard gage , wtc 7 , wtc 7 report

Reply
Old 15th March 2011, 07:28 PM   #81
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
.......you are already building your strawman. Strawman fully active...
Um, it's not a strawman, it's a law of physics. Buildings, too, conform to the laws of our physical universe.

Summary: free fall doesn't have to mean demolition, but it does mean resistance has been removed to the object in free fall. That, in fact, is the definition of free fall.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 15th March 2011, 11:31 PM   #82
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Um, it's not a strawman,...
What you wrote was.
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
... it's a law of physics...
...and what you wrote wasn't.
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Buildings, too, conform to the laws of our physical universe....
Given your other posts I suspect you may mean that BUT don't understand what it means.
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...Summary: free fall doesn't have to mean demolition,...
True - that is what I said...
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
..but it does mean resistance has been removed to the object in free fall....
I'm glad to see that you can correct your errors when pressed to do so.
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
That, in fact, is the definition of free fall.
...aww!!! You're slipping again.
ozeco41 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 15th March 2011, 11:38 PM   #83
dc1971
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Um, it's not a strawman, it's a law of physics. Buildings, too, conform to the laws of our physical universe.
And so when a building collapses, does that mean it's NOT conforming to the laws of our physical universe??
dc1971 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 16th March 2011, 07:49 AM   #84
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
NIST Answers to my March 6 Debate Questions

Prior to my debate with Richard Gage, I asked several questions of NIST. Here are their official answers (minus some weblinks I have to take out because JREF doesn't allow newbies to include them). I also talked for several hours by phone to get further clarification. As you can see, most of these answers are reiterations of what they have already said, and I have added some comments below to say more about what I gleaned from phone conversations.

Generally, the NIST report makes sense to me, and there are areas where there are minor disagreements on the probable collapse sequence from other sources. I relied almost exclusively on other sources for information on the collapses themselves because NIST did not extensively study that. As Michael Newman said, there are plenty of excellent peer-reviewed papers on the collapses, but the bottom line is that once the collapses began, gravity took care of the rest and overwhelmed the structure.

Many of my questions came straight from Richard Gage's debating points; I knew I would have to have compelling narratives and a good understanding of them to answer them. So here are my questions, NIST answers and my comments below.

1) Just making sure I understand sag vs pancake etc., getting clear on the difference and why the pancake theory popularized on public TV several years ago is no longer accepted. Also is there photographic evidence of sagging steel structures and steel columns being pulled inward? I do have figure 2-12 with the lattice overlay of inward buckling. I'll be using a lot of slides and videos (as will Richard) and visuals work well for this audience.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

The change from “truss failure and pancake collapse” to the “weakened trusses that did not completely fail causing inward bowing of the perimeter columns and a non-progressive collapse” was acknowledged in the second of two NOVA TV documentaries about Ground Zero. The first program, “Why the Towers Fell” in 2002, discussed the truss failure/pancake collapse theory postulated by the Building Performance Assessment Team study (done by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers) that was the precursor to our more comprehensive investigation (which was under way at the time the program was produced). The follow-up program, “Building on Ground Zero” in 2006, corrected their previous report with a discussion of the “inward bowing” mechanism.

2) Making sure I understand how to calculate the kinetic energy of the fall. Besides f=ma, what are the factors that determine how much more force gravity adds to a falling object? Richard Gage says there is not enough kinetic energy for the collapse to continue, but with the f=ma formula it seems that an object hits with 9.8 times more force just in the first second (assuming not much elasticity... and concrete and steel aren't all that elastic). By the way, I will be dropping a 25 pound dumbbell on a bathroom scale from 6 1/2 feet up. That's only half a story. In my first debate with a local 911 guy I crushed the scale completely. It's not scientific but I think it does demonstrate how even 25 pounds in free fall quickly generates enough force to crush a scale designed to measure the weight of a 300-pound object!

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan.

... these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.


CHRIS COMMENT: Here I disagree with NIST. I think their figures of 9 and 11 seconds for Twin Towers' collapses of columns and walls which fell outside the buildings' perimeters and were in freefall tell us nothing about the collapse speed of the buildings themselves, which many people (including Thomas Eagar and even many 911 Truth people) have estimated was at 2/3 to 3/4 freefall. That, I believe, is evidence of structural resistance to the Towers collapses. In the debate I also pointed out that the slow collapse of the cores is evidence of natural collapse because that would be where there would be the most structural resistance... and NO controlled demolition would EVER destroy the CORE last!!

3) The tops of WTC I and II have been compared to pile drivers pushing the building through a natural collapse. But since both the top and bottom of the buildings were of similar structural strength, it looks to me like the bottom of the building was like a pile driver for the top as well. As the top of the building loses its structure while crashing down onto the very strong steel supports of the bottom part, how does the structural collapse of the top affect its ability to keep pushing down on the bottom of the building?

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

CHRIS COMMENT: My conversations with NIST confirmed their view that gravitational momentum so completely overwhelmed the structure that there was nothing new to say about it. I didn't use the pile driver analogy in the debate because it is inaccurate, but I wish I had remembered to talk about how the net mass of the descending part of the buildings increased with every floor, 6-10 million lbs per floor, 12 floors per second. There was some loss of mass due to dust and ejections, but net gain of mass due to these new floors joining in the collapse.


4) How could the towers have collapsed almost straight down? I have good answers (building was 95% air by volume, no lateral force like an earthquake pushed it to the side, etc). Still, I can't quite answer their assertion that a mostly straight-down collapse would have required that hundreds of structural supports all fail at once, that the randomness of natural fires creates asymmetrical collapses.

in the absence of any lateral forces acting on the falling mass, gravity will cause the mass (upper stories of the building) to collapse straight down. Core members were still standing after the rest of the building had collapsed.


5) Do you have an explanation for the iron microspheres in the WTC dust? Controlled demolition theorists assert this is evidence of very high temperatures during the collapse, well over 2000 degrees, which leads them to thermites. The "911 debunkers" claim the microspheres are in printer toner, burnt garbage ash, concrete, etc but I can't find evidence of this.

NIST did not study the “microspheres.” The body of available evidence does not support the theory that thermite or nanothermite was used to demolish the WTC Towers or WTC 7.

As far as the “microspheres” that were claimed to have been found at Ground Zero, there are two arguments against their being linked to thermite or nanothermite. First, there is no "chain of custody" for the samples. They cannot be traced back to anything "used" in the towers or WTC 7, or for that matter, or to any of the these three buildings at all.

Secondly, even if the samples could be conclusively linked to one of the three WTC buildings, there are hundreds of possible sources for the samples reported. For example, the alternative theory groups have often cited a U.S. Geological Survey paper, “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust Report,” as documenting the chemical signature of thermite. However, a review of the actual paper shows that the authors state that "the trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts." There is NO mention of thermite or nanothermite as a possible source.


CHRIS COMMENT: This is one of many examples of dead ends I found when I researched 911 Truth claims and found that the scientific studies they were referring to either did not say what they claim they said or actually said the opposite. It was a maddening aspect of the debate preparation and strengthened my conviction that the science is not there to support Gage's claims. Also, I suggested in the debate that the iron microspheres probably came from the 1972-73 welders. In welding the steel parts of the building together, the workers brought the steel up to very high temperatures with their torches and white-hot steel sprayed all over the place. Thus, microspheres everywhere. I used that argument instead of debating "chain of custody." I also encouraged the AE911 Truth folks to push for more studies on the thermitic dust, to get real peer reviewed articles etc. As I said, they will never get an "independent investigation" with what they have, so from a scientist's perspective their only hope is to produce real scientific evidence for their claims. (And if they try to do this I believe they will fail, but I will let the scientists decide in a real peer-reviewed process). In the debate I said they will never get their "real" investigation without some real evidence.

6) For Building Seven, if column 79 had failed, weren't there redundant support structures somewhere to shift the load to, at least partially? It seems that all big buildings are designed with structural redundancies. How can one column's failure bring the whole building down? I do see an eight-second time period on the video of the Bldg 7 collapse after the east penthouse goes down. Is that when the structural load shifted momentarily before the global collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

CHRIS COMMENT: This of course is a reiteration of NIST's official position. I got more help for this question from other sources, and now realize that the probable collapse sequence (or some variation of it) does indeed posit a series of internal collapses and failures during that critical seven seconds after the east penthouse collapsed. Indeed, by the end, there was nothing left to support the outside perimeter, and one eight-story-long column was probably still attached to the perimeter and actually dragged it down during the free-fall 2.25 seconds. It was difficult in a nonscientific debate setting to explain the rather complex probable collapse sequence... tough to compete against "But it collapsed at free fall, it MUST be controlled demolition!"

7) Your official 2008 report says that Building 7 fell at 100% of free fall acceleration for over two seconds of the collapse. Even if the major support structure had collapsed, it seems there would have to be SOME resistance to the collapse. How is this possible?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released for public comment on Aug. 21, 2008), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail. That was done for the final WTC 7 report (released Nov. 20, 2008).

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

CHRIS COMMENT: Since Gage focuses so intensely on that 2.25 seconds of free-fall, I wanted a more specific answer than this from NIST. In my phone conversations, I got the same sense that gravitational momentum completely overwhelmed the structure. As with the Twin Towers, NIST did not devote their resources to studying the actual collapse. It would have been easier for me as a debater if they had, but when you consider that an object in free fall has almost ten times more "weight" after only one second, I agree with them that gravity is one mighty force and deserves less attention than the probable collapse sequence itself.

8.) Your report says that the Building 7 fires were scattered on several floors, that it was not one huge fire. How do I reconcile this information with a global collapse of a steel framed building for the first time ever.

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

As stated previously above, the heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

CHRIS COMMENT: Again, there are minor variations on this proposed collapse sequence, and I studied several of them for the debate. One intriguing theory NIST did not really study is the idea that the very long trusses expanded, sagged... then shrank while maintaining their sagged shape as the fires moved on and the sagged beam cooled again, causing even more structural stress. (Thanks Ryan Mackey) I think when Gage talks about NIST “inventing thermal expansion,” he may be talking about how NIST proposed that the sheer length of the trusses caused thermal expansion of the steel to be a major causative factor in the collapse (for the first time?). Why he poo-poos that idea remains a mystery to me... it makes sense to me, after all, and I am glad that future building and fire codes will now take this danger into account. In my conversations with NIST, I understood much better how in their 911 reports, their goal was to understand the collapse sequence so they could propose new STANDARDS for building and fire safety to save the lives of JREFers and Truthers alike. That’s what the S in NIST stands for, after all.

9.) In Appendix C of an earlier FEMA report, there is talk of sulfidized steel. Chemistry is a weak spot for me; I understand physics better. Richard Gage makes a big deal about this Appendix and his assertion that it is not dealt with in the subsequent NIST report. From the 1000 or so pages I have read of your report, I haven't found it either, and I see much more physics than chemistry in your report. That said, I have to try to find an answer to this question of how there was melted and sulfidized steel. Is there a chemist at NIST who has researched this? So far I have come up with this:

a) Sulfidized steel melts at a lower temperature than regular steel (I have read figures of both 1800 and 2200 degrees F).
b) Gypsum, which is 18% sulfur, was used as fire insulation for some of the steel beams and trusses.
c) I don't know how steel is sulfidized. Is mere proximity of steel and sulfur during a fire enough to sulfidize steel?
d) If so, could some steel have been sulfidized in the WTC fires, causing some steel to melt at the lower temperatures of the WTC fires? Or is there another explanation? Or is there no explanation yet? Except for this I have so far been able to find alternative explanations for melted steel in the rubble (such as melted aluminum from airplanes and cars in the basement garages).

The steel sections used in the other WTC buildings (WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) were conventional sections and were not marked. Thus it was not possible to conclusively trace the piece studied in the FEMA report to a particular building. It is also not possible to determine how and when the sulfidation occurred. It is important to note that NIST found that the steel only needed to heat sufficiently to lose a substantial amount of its strength and stiffness, which occurs at a temperature well below the melting point.

CHRIS: I hope this long post is OK for this thread. Next time I promise to write something that is only one sentence long. Gage and his crew are working on a video of this debate now. I'll let you all know when it comes out.
chrismohr 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 16th March 2011, 03:27 PM   #85
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Chris;

Thanks for the comprehensive post. I will prepare my comments in (what I hope will be simple ) one or two sentence identification of key issues relevant to each of your numbered sections. Here is my response to Section 1
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
... 1) Just making sure I understand sag vs pancake etc., getting clear on the difference and why the pancake theory popularized on public TV several years ago is no longer accepted...NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse,...
This is an area which has been subject of misrepresentation and misunderstanding because parties from both sides have failed to make clear what stage of collapse they are talking about. The overall collapse of WTC1 and WTC 2 can be legitimately divided into stages. Two of those stages being 'collapse initiation' (alternatively 'the initial collapse') and 'collapse progression' (alternatively 'global collapse')

NIST did not study the second phase of 'collapse progression'. They analysed 'collapse initiation' and from there concluded correctly that, once the initial downwards movement started, i.e. the 'initial collapse', 'global collapse was inevitable'. So all the comments about 'pancake theory....is no longer accepted' by NIST et al' refer only to 'collapse initiation'.

It is generally accepted that the 'global collapse' occurred by a form of pancaking collapse in the outer 'tube' of the open office space. This leading to truther misrepresentations/misunderstanding about the global collapse where pancaking was the main mechanism by quote mining of NIST to claim that there was no pancaking involved in the collapse. The facts are that pancaking did not cause the initial collapse; but pancaking was probably the main mechanism in the global collapse.

Hence the need when discussing pancaking to be explicitly clear as to which stage of collapse you are discussing.

More to follow...

Last edited by ozeco41; 16th March 2011 at 03:45 PM.
ozeco41 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 16th March 2011, 04:33 PM   #86
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
@chrismohr.
My comments on section 2:
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
2) Making sure I understand how to calculate the kinetic energy of the fall...

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground...

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.

CHRIS COMMENT: Here I disagree with NIST. I think their figures of 9 and 11 seconds for Twin Towers' collapses of columns and walls which fell outside the buildings' perimeters and were in freefall tell us nothing about the collapse speed of the buildings themselves, which many people (including Thomas Eagar and even many 911 Truth people) have estimated was at 2/3 to 3/4 freefall. That, I believe, is evidence of structural resistance to the Towers collapses. In the debate I also pointed out that the slow collapse of the cores is evidence of natural collapse because that would be where there would be the most structural resistance... and NO controlled demolition would EVER destroy the CORE last!!
Chris I identify at least two key issues in this Section 2.

The first key issue is the approach to analysis from the perspective of energy. In my opinion this only confuses and complicates the matter for many people from either side. Yes the energy was overwhelming. But the actual collapse mechanism is easy to explain. Remember we are talking about the 'global collapse' stage for WTC1 and WTC2. Both those global collapses are easiest understood as three mechanisms running in parallel with time delays between the three.

The leading mechanism was where the outer office space of the falling 'top block' and the accumulating debris of disconnected floors, fell down the open office space outside the core and inside the outer perimeter columns. The falling weight of material from ~10 or ~20 floors was an overwhelming overload on the floor joists of each floor shearing of each floor where it connected to the outer perimeter columns and the core. (By the way falling down that open space using the core and the outer wall columns as guides is one of the key reasons why the towers fell vertically 'in their own footprint'. It also happens to be the path of least resistance despite the common truther claim to the contrary.) (Also I have grossly but validly simplified the explanation.)

So the floors pancaked down one after the other and left the outer wall columns standing and the core standing.

Which brings us to 'mechanism 2' - once the floors were disconnected the outer wall columns were left standing unbraced. They simply fell over, outwards, in various sizes of 'sheets of columns'. This occurring some time after the floor disconnecting pancake collapse had passed the relevant level. So there is the first time delay I mentioned.

That leaves 'mechanism 3' - collapse of the core. My explanation and put simply is that the falling material landing on the core was initially the core sections of the top block. The main contact between the falling top block and the lower core was horizontal beams on horizontal beams. (explanation available if needed - here and anywhere else.) Although those beams were far stronger that the office space floor joists they were still far too weak to resist the overwhelming falling weight. So those horizontal beams were sheared off. Recall the 'spire' of core remnant which briefly remained stranding after the remainder of the tower had collapse. They showed clearly that the horizontal beams had sheared of - at least at those lower levels. So there is the second time delay.

So much for the first key issue of the approach from the perspective of 'energy'. My comment is forget energy when explaining for laypersons. It confuses many engineers so what chance the layperson. A better explanatory approach is to 'understand how the towers fell' and it will make it easier to see where the energy analyses fit into the picture. WARNING many of the engineering explanations make dubious assumptions and may only serve to confuse engineers and laypersons alike. Be warned.


The second key issue is the collapse timings. Timings are usually addressed in the context of truther concerns about 'free-fall' and the false presumption that 'free-fall' only occurs with demolition.

Then I suggest your point of disagreement with NIST hits the nail. The collapse was not at free-fall. There are several video clips available showing large hunks of debris falling free of the tower and faster than the tower collapse. They would be falling at free-fall The time of collapse of the office space floors would be the next shortest followed by the peeling collapse of the outer wall columns. The core being slowest by far.

I like the point you make:
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...the slow collapse of the cores is evidence of natural collapse because that would be where there would be the most structural resistance... and NO controlled demolition would EVER destroy the CORE last!!
Well spotted.
ozeco41 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 16th March 2011, 07:18 PM   #87
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
For the most part you did pretty good, but you let Gage get away with his thing where he keeps on talking about massive explosives, but then anytime he is questioned on the lack of evidence of explosions he morphs seamlessly to talking about incendiaries while ignoring the complete 180 in claims. Arguing with a truther is for the most part like arguing with a religious fanatic, it is a matter of belief to them, not evidence. Entertaining though.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB 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 16th March 2011, 09:52 PM   #88
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Originally Posted by NIST
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

The change from “truss failure and pancake collapse” to the “weakened trusses that did not completely fail causing inward bowing of the perimeter columns and a non-progressive collapse” was acknowledged in the second of two NOVA TV documentaries about Ground Zero. ..

This answer satisfied you? How?

They "refute" FEMA's pancake collapse progression by discussing collapse initiation. - ??

And then conclude that the floors did not fail "progressively" without explaining how the floors did collapse - !

And what happened to "progressive collapse"? The towers did not experience progressive collapse?

There's more, but this is just one of the many contradictions we encounter with the NIST explanation. How do you explain this?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 16th March 2011 at 09:56 PM.
ergo 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 16th March 2011, 10:07 PM   #89
dc1971
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
This answer satisfied you? How?

They "refute" FEMA's pancake collapse progression by discussing collapse initiation. - ??

And then conclude that the floors did not fail "progressively" without explaining how the floors did collapse - !

And what happened to "progressive collapse"? The towers did not experience progressive collapse?

There's more, but this is just one of the many contradictions we encounter with the NIST explanation. How do you explain this?
**SIGH** Must we keep this going in circles? Shucks!
dc1971 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 17th March 2011, 12:07 AM   #90
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by dc1971 View Post
**SIGH** Must we keep this going in circles? Shucks!
ergo is merely trying to muddy the waters. He will fail. Chris has access to my explanation in this thread and other similar ones if he needs them. On these issues ergo is a spent force.
ozeco41 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 17th March 2011, 06:40 AM   #91
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
For the most part you did pretty good, but you let Gage get away with his thing where he keeps on talking about massive explosives, but then anytime he is questioned on the lack of evidence of explosions he morphs seamlessly to talking about incendiaries while ignoring the complete 180 in claims. Arguing with a truther is for the most part like arguing with a religious fanatic, it is a matter of belief to them, not evidence. Entertaining though.
It's true, I wasn't as fast on my feet as I wished I could have been. Preparation was stronger than my untested skills at instant rebuttal (I have done only three debates in my life, the first when I was 17). At one point offstage I told Richard I wasn't sure what I was debating: thermates or nanothermites, can you please tell me? He said nanothermites for the twin towers (explosive) and thermates for Building 7 (thus less lateral ejection and less noise). Knowing this I could have retorted that the nanothermites or ANY product capable of hurling large metal objects hundreds of feet would be highly explosive-sounding. As for thermates, they do have enough heat to cut through metal "like a hot knife through butter" more quietly but the process is more like a melting and would be a poor choice for a precisely timed controlled demolition (and using two completely untested new products for the biggest, most public controlled demos in history). Anyway, there's the latest Gage theory and I missed the chance to fully rebut it. But that's OK, he's still having to deal with the 103 reasons for natural collapse I projected up onto the screen!
chrismohr 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 17th March 2011, 06:51 AM   #92
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
I just reread the AE911truth account of the March 6 debate and the statistics are most interesting. 225-250 people showed up, more than 3/4 believed in controlled demolition at the start, and some 96 people filled out the 911Truth survey. Check out these figures:

Changes of Opinion
3 Switched from Unsure to For Controlled Demolition
2 Switched from Unsure to For Natural Collapse
3 Switched from for Controlled Demolition to Unsure
1 Switched from for Controlled Demolition to for Natural Collapse

That's a total of three who shifted in Gage's direction and six who shifted my direction. As I've said before, Richard Gage has formidable rhetorical skills, and on his own has a very high "conversion rate" among the unsure. I'm pleased to see that there appeared to be at least some shift towards natural collapse in this audience so dominated by hard-core believers in 911 controlled demolition.
chrismohr 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 17th March 2011, 06:55 AM   #93
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
@chrismohr.
My comments on section 2: Chris I identify at least two key issues in this Section 2.

The first key issue is the approach to analysis from the perspective of energy. In my opinion this only confuses and complicates the matter for many people from either side. Yes the energy was overwhelming. But the actual collapse mechanism is easy to explain. Remember we are talking about the 'global collapse' stage for WTC1 and WTC2. Both those global collapses are easiest understood as three mechanisms running in parallel with time delays between the three.

The leading mechanism was where the outer office space of the falling 'top block' and the accumulating debris of disconnected floors, fell down the open office space outside the core and inside the outer perimeter columns. The falling weight of material from ~10 or ~20 floors was an overwhelming overload on the floor joists of each floor shearing of each floor where it connected to the outer perimeter columns and the core. (By the way falling down that open space using the core and the outer wall columns as guides is one of the key reasons why the towers fell vertically 'in their own footprint'. It also happens to be the path of least resistance despite the common truther claim to the contrary.) (Also I have grossly but validly simplified the explanation.)

So the floors pancaked down one after the other and left the outer wall columns standing and the core standing.

Which brings us to 'mechanism 2' - once the floors were disconnected the outer wall columns were left standing unbraced. They simply fell over, outwards, in various sizes of 'sheets of columns'. This occurring some time after the floor disconnecting pancake collapse had passed the relevant level. So there is the first time delay I mentioned.

That leaves 'mechanism 3' - collapse of the core. My explanation and put simply is that the falling material landing on the core was initially the core sections of the top block. The main contact between the falling top block and the lower core was horizontal beams on horizontal beams. (explanation available if needed - here and anywhere else.) Although those beams were far stronger that the office space floor joists they were still far too weak to resist the overwhelming falling weight. So those horizontal beams were sheared off. Recall the 'spire' of core remnant which briefly remained stranding after the remainder of the tower had collapse. They showed clearly that the horizontal beams had sheared of - at least at those lower levels. So there is the second time delay.

So much for the first key issue of the approach from the perspective of 'energy'. My comment is forget energy when explaining for laypersons. It confuses many engineers so what chance the layperson. A better explanatory approach is to 'understand how the towers fell' and it will make it easier to see where the energy analyses fit into the picture. WARNING many of the engineering explanations make dubious assumptions and may only serve to confuse engineers and laypersons alike. Be warned.


The second key issue is the collapse timings. Timings are usually addressed in the context of truther concerns about 'free-fall' and the false presumption that 'free-fall' only occurs with demolition.

Then I suggest your point of disagreement with NIST hits the nail. The collapse was not at free-fall. There are several video clips available showing large hunks of debris falling free of the tower and faster than the tower collapse. They would be falling at free-fall The time of collapse of the office space floors would be the next shortest followed by the peeling collapse of the outer wall columns. The core being slowest by far.

I like the point you make:

Well spotted.
Thank you for all the time y'all are taking to clarify all of this. It's fun to read all the feedback both here and on Truther sites. I'll be keeping all this for future reference. I'd debate this more if someone just paid me enough!
chrismohr 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 17th March 2011, 07:17 AM   #94
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
ergo is merely trying to muddy the waters. He will fail. Chris has access to my explanation in this thread and other similar ones if he needs them. On these issues ergo is a spent force.
I'm hoping Chris can see for himself who has muddied the waters and who is seeking clarification.

Read it again:
Quote:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems ... The floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST has had numerous opportunities to clarify this, and had yet another opportunity in their correspondence with Chris, but they didn't do so.

"Progressive failure of the floor systems" speaks of the progressive failure of the floors, i.e., pancaking. How does "progressive failure of floors" refer only to collapse initiation, ozeco? Why couldn't NIST, in their thousands of pages, include a single sentence that said, "Oh, by the way, after the buckling columns, the floors collapsed progressively. But we still can't explain the core."

Moreover, you don't "explain" anything. You say: "It is generally accepted" that global collapse occurred via pancaking of the floors. Which is going right back to the FEMA model that NIST rejects and which was flawed for not explaining the core collapse. You are basically trying to assert exactly what NIST says didn't happen, referring to some kind of vague, unnamed consensus. By whom? Bazant? NIST never models this. And now we're in the cartoon "crush down, crush up" territory.

This is not muddying the waters. This is showing you exactly where your model (or models, I guess) fail. If you can't reconcile this contradiction, you have to admit how seriously flawed they are.

I hope Chris will take the time to consider this, and not simply allow his eyes to glaze over in bedunkerist "One Big Blur of Planes and Fires" vagueness and incoherence.

And please don't say the core survived. It did not. Remnants of it appear halfway down the building (what happened to it above all this?) for a few seconds and then appear to disintegrate in mid air.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 17th March 2011, 08:42 AM   #95
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I just reread the AE911truth account of the March 6 debate and the statistics are most interesting. 225-250 people showed up, more than 3/4 believed in controlled demolition at the start, and some 96 people filled out the 911Truth survey. Check out these figures:

Changes of Opinion
3 Switched from Unsure to For Controlled Demolition
2 Switched from Unsure to For Natural Collapse
3 Switched from for Controlled Demolition to Unsure
1 Switched from for Controlled Demolition to for Natural Collapse

That's a total of three who shifted in Gage's direction and six who shifted my direction. As I've said before, Richard Gage has formidable rhetorical skills, and on his own has a very high "conversion rate" among the unsure. I'm pleased to see that there appeared to be at least some shift towards natural collapse in this audience so dominated by hard-core believers in 911 controlled demolition.
I picked up on that as well, though the figures should be handled carefully given that the majority didn't fill out the survey (?? -- afraid the NWO would get their DNA and a writing sample?).

The more significant result is that nobody cares about Gage, apart from those who are already Truthers, plus a mere handful who may have been cajoled into going, are really Truthers but think they are open-minded, or thought they were going to see The Wall but forgot movie night was a different day...

This is consistent with every other metric of the Truth Movement. They have no appeal whatsoever outside of their own little circle, and that is dwindling. This is also why "debate" is pointless, in my opinion -- the audience is already hostile, and to have remained Truthers so long, is going to prove nearly unreachable with a mere retelling of existing facts and logic.
R.Mackey 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 17th March 2011, 08:56 AM   #96
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
This answer satisfied you? How?

They "refute" FEMA's pancake collapse progression by discussing collapse initiation. - ??

And then conclude that the floors did not fail "progressively" without explaining how the floors did collapse - !

And what happened to "progressive collapse"? The towers did not experience progressive collapse?

There's more, but this is just one of the many contradictions we encounter with the NIST explanation. How do you explain this?
Hi Ergo,

I'm not a strict adherent to the NIST account. They have little to say about the actual collapses, and there are variations on the official NIST probable collapse initiation sequences out there. These variations on the NIST theory are common in scientific circles (the mechanism of evolution is still the subject of countless papers, for example). Bottom line for me: the fires wreaked havoc on the buildings and were severe (in the case of the Twin Towers) or long-lasting with no water to fight them (in the case of Building 7). There are several good proposed collapse sequences out there you can study (including NIST's). There are things unique to the structures of these buildings that caused their natural collapse due to fire. And most importantly, as soon as the collapse began, gravity took over, increasing the momentum of the collapse by a factor of almost ten in the first second alone. Gravity, gravity, gravity. My pancake theory inquiry was a finer detail I wanted to be ready for in case I needed it in the debate. By stark contrast, the various controlled demolition theories are screaming with contradictions, distortions of fact and scientific impossibilities. I enumerate 103 of those in the debate (you'll be able to see them all displayed onscreen in the video Gage's group is working on). Best of luck in your research.
chrismohr 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 17th March 2011, 09:16 AM   #97
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: 34,249
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
By stark contrast, the various controlled demolition theories are screaming with contradictions, distortions of fact and scientific impossibilities. I enumerate 103 of those in the debate (you'll be able to see them all displayed onscreen in the video Gage's group is working on).
I'd really like to see your list - could you post it here so I can see if I've missed any?

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
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
Old 17th March 2011, 02:24 PM   #98
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I'd really like to see your list - could you post it here so I can see if I've missed any?

Dave
Hi Dave,
All the 103 reasons appeared in the debate verbally. When the video comes out they will be enumerated visually as well. It would take me too long to organize them in a postable way at this point, sorry.
chrismohr 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 21st March 2011, 07:12 AM   #99
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Ozeco41, if you have time I'm always interested in your additional feedback. The final debate video may well have yet another pair of post-debate comment times for me and Richard, during which time I will clarify some of what was debated one last time. I'm happy with what I did but happier that most of my spare time is now going back to my music and my prison volunteer work.
chrismohr 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 21st March 2011, 01:16 PM   #100
Fly Poster
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 162
Hi Chris, glad you have joined. I halfway through listening to the debate, dunno if this has already been mentioned, but user "Sunstealer" on here has some great posts that go into detail about the Sulphidation of the steal, Sunstealer is a metallurgist, and he has helped me out in an ongoing debate I am having. One very possible cause is sulphuric acid from car batteries. Well done btw.
__________________
"Everyone who comes from the UK is a perp.
"I've been searching for truth since 2006... and in all of that time I've traded notes with people from around the world...

... What's interesting is that EVERY person from the UK has turned out to be a perp. Amazing. And when you visit TheFlyposter's YouTube profile page, s/he's from the UK"

Last edited by Fly Poster; 21st March 2011 at 01:17 PM. Reason: gram error.
Fly Poster 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 21st March 2011, 02:40 PM   #101
Fly Poster
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 162
Did anyone else notice the other faked bit of footage Gage slipped in?
Just sent a message to Chris about it, it was the explosion sound that was dubbed over the guy on the payphone. I can't seem to find the thread about it on here, so if anyone can help out.

Ta.
__________________
"Everyone who comes from the UK is a perp.
"I've been searching for truth since 2006... and in all of that time I've traded notes with people from around the world...

... What's interesting is that EVERY person from the UK has turned out to be a perp. Amazing. And when you visit TheFlyposter's YouTube profile page, s/he's from the UK"
Fly Poster 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 21st March 2011, 06:19 PM   #102
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
At one point offstage I told Richard I wasn't sure what I was debating: thermates or nanothermites, can you please tell me? He said nanothermites for the twin towers (explosive) and thermates for Building 7 (thus less lateral ejection and less noise).
That is a bogus explanation though. Heck, their own homepage says, in bold print no less:

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

And even in this debate he mentioned the whole McPadden thing. This is not meant as a criticism of you, I have debated these people, trying to track all of their arguments is maddening.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB 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 21st March 2011, 08:52 PM   #103
dropzone
Master Poster
 
dropzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,033
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
I really shouldn't make a big deal about though. Gravy is a tour guide and he had Richie crying in a puddle of his own piss. So maybe Rev. Mohr will put up a better fight than I am presuming.
OTOH, regardless his profession, Gravy is not an idiot. There's a lot to be said for that. A BIG lot.

Considering the tour guide gig, myself. Chicago has so many sites, and even more with the right wiggle room spin. As a practitioner of misdirection, Mr R wouldn't object to a member scalping some rubes making a few bucks, would he?

It can be surprising how quickly a joke can turn into a business proposal.
dropzone 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 March 2011, 04:18 PM   #104
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,472
Originally Posted by Fly Poster View Post
Did anyone else notice the other faked bit of footage Gage slipped in?
Just sent a message to Chris about it, it was the explosion sound that was dubbed over the guy on the payphone. I can't seem to find the thread about it on here, so if anyone can help out.

Ta.

I believe it's discussed in these threads (among others):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=79704
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...28#post2444428

Hope that helps.
LashL 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 March 2011, 11:00 AM   #105
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I suggested in the debate that the iron microspheres probably came from the 1972-73 welders. In welding the steel parts of the building together, the workers brought the steel up to very high temperatures with their torches and white-hot steel sprayed all over the place. Thus, microspheres everywhere.
Chris,

That is just unsubstantiated speculation.

The RJ Lee Group said:
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
event,
producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel)
."
Steel melts at 2750oF and Iron melts at 2800oF

The RJ Lee Group confirms even higher temperatures were attained:
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,
vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2...logy.Final.pdf

Lead Melting point 622oF [328oC]
Boiling point - Vaporization 3182oF [1,750oC]
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/me...res-d_392.html
Christopher7 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 March 2011, 11:45 AM   #106
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&h...3e2739446bc197
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith 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 March 2011, 11:50 AM   #107
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Chris,

That is just unsubstantiated speculation.

The RJ Lee Group said:
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
event,
producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel)
."
Steel melts at 2750oF and Iron melts at 2800oF

The RJ Lee Group confirms even higher temperatures were attained:
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,
vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2...logy.Final.pdf

Lead Melting point 622oF [328oC]
Boiling point - Vaporization 3182oF [1,750oC]
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/me...res-d_392.html
Could you point to the part of that report where they concluded this was suspicious?
__________________
"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 24th March 2011, 01:01 PM   #108
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Clean up and WTC collapse dust, RJ Lee

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...
That is just unsubstantiated speculation.

...
It is better than that! He is right, but must include clean up cuts in the thousands. No thermite was found. The dust in this study included material and vapors spread during clean up.

... The study includes vapor and dust from clean up. Months of cutting torches. Months of melting steel columns to clean up.

The samples were taken from the Deutsche Bank. There was a big hole in the Deutsche Bank. In 2002 the samples were taken which included dust from clean up.

Are you trying to be silly by cherry-picking this report? What was your goal?

Guess who wanted the study? Deutsche Bank. What did they need the study for?

130 Liberty Street property. Deutsche Bank was unsalvageable. The dust was collected when? June 2002. Clean up dust.

Last edited by beachnut; 24th March 2011 at 01:03 PM.
beachnut 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 March 2011, 02:06 PM   #109
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
It is better than that! He is right, but must include clean up cuts in the thousands.
He has no idea, he was just speculating. RJ Lee said the iron was melted and the lead vaporized during the WTC event.

Quote:
No thermite was found.
They did not look for it.

Quote:
The dust in this study included material and vapors spread during clean up. The samples were taken from the Deutsche Bank. There was a big hole in the Deutsche Bank. In 2002 the samples were taken which included dust from clean up. The samples were taken from the Deutsche Bank. There was a big hole in the Deutsche Bank. In 2002 the samples were taken which included dust from clean up.
That would not account for the spheres and lead vapor getting into inaccessible places. Lead vapor and microscopic spheres might get into the Bankers Trust building, they would not be forced into places the dust cloud from the collapses went.

I included the quote about the contamination during the cleanup.

RJ Lee Group report 2003
Pg 4 [pdf pg 5]
The pressure differential was caused by the onrush of the WTC Dust cloud that was created by the collapse of the WTC Towers with a low pressure inside Building components and high pressure outside. A huge pressure difference was created that caused large quantities of dust laden air to move through unplanned pathways. Individual components or devices with internal spaces effectively acted like a vacuum cleaner pulling the dust into them with great force.
Pg 5
The investigations proved that the Building is pervasively contaminated with WTC Dust, unique to the WTC Event.
Pg 6
As a result of microscopic and chemical analysis of the components of the WTC Dust, it was determined that the average level of contaminants were present in direct proportion to one another throughout the Building,
Pg 10
The characteristics of the dust are a result of the collapse of the WTC Towers and the subsequent fires at the WTC site which collectively were unique events that produced unique dust.
Pg 11
The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2...04.1646.mp.pdf

Last edited by Christopher7; 24th March 2011 at 02:09 PM.
Christopher7 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 March 2011, 03:07 PM   #110
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
He has no idea, he was just speculating. RJ Lee said the iron was melted and the lead vaporized during the WTC event.

...
Office fires are extremely hot, we know that. People jumped instead of burning in extremely hot fires which melt Pb.

Not turthful. The dust was collected in 2002 after clean up of the WTC collapse. That means the dust was from collapse and clean up.


RJ Lee said nothing, not a thing! The report said the dust was collected after the clean up.

The melted steel was during clean up. Failure is 911 truth, don't join the anti-intellectual movement.
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...torch-cutsteel
The dust was collect right next to Ground Zero.
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...Cuts1-full.jpg
This is where the melted steel came from. Cuts made after 911. Thousands of cuts made after 911.

Last edited by beachnut; 24th March 2011 at 03:15 PM.
beachnut 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 March 2011, 03:31 PM   #111
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Office fires are extremely hot, we know that. People jumped instead of burning in extremely hot fires which melt Pb.
Not hot enough to melt iron or vaporize lead.

Quote:
Not turthful.
Truthful.

Quote:
The dust was collected in 2002 after clean up of the WTC collapse. That means the dust was from collapse and clean up.
Correct, but the RJ Lee Group said:
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event"

ETA:Only the dust near the gash in the front of the building would be contain dust from the cleanup. Did you read the part about the dust cloud?
The microspheres from torches is just more speculation.

"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse "

Last edited by Christopher7; 24th March 2011 at 03:47 PM.
Christopher7 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 March 2011, 03:49 PM   #112
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse "
I wonder if there was any friction (heat) during 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 24th March 2011, 04:08 PM   #113
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Not hot enough to melt iron or vaporize lead.

Truthful.

Correct, but the RJ Lee Group said:
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event"

ETA:Only the dust near the gash in the front of the building would be contain dust from the cleanup. Did you read the part about the dust cloud?
The microspheres from torches is just more speculation.

"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse "
During clean up the steel was cut, melted. Truthful

The dust study you presented was dust from the WTC collapse and clean up. The iron was melted during the clean up. Proof is presented again, do deny the evidence means you are spreading lies.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...torch-cutsteel
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...Cuts1-full.jpg
The dust was collected right next to this! To deny this is spreading lies. The dust was collected After May 2002, after clean up. If you deny this you are telling lies, spreading delusions, making up nonsense.

Quote:
"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse "
The heat of an office fire is extremely high temperature. The melted lead was vaporized during the collapse which was the energy equal over 200 TONS of TNT. Lead temperature above 1000°F will increase lead fumes, office fires exceed 1000 F and jet fuel fires exceed 1200 F.


Extra credit

The concentration of Pb (lead) on the mineral wool (aka insulation) was 0.04 percent. That can be accounted for from many sources including batteries. I have over 10 UPS in my house; was there a whole floor of UPS in the WTC? There was 67 percent carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sodium, silicon, sulfur, chlorine, calcium "vaporized" (found) on the mineral wool.

0.04 percent, 1/2500.

Last edited by beachnut; 24th March 2011 at 04:52 PM.
beachnut 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 March 2011, 06:14 PM   #114
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
During clean up the steel was cut, melted. Truthful

The dust study you presented was dust from the WTC collapse and clean up. The iron was melted during the clean up.
The overpressure of the dust cloud created by the collapses forced the dust all thru the Bankers Trust building. Dust from the debris pile was stirred up in the cleanup process adding to the dust in the gouge area but not all the areas reached by the dust cloud.

Quote:
No, the dust samples were collected from various places in and on top of the Bankers Trust building.
Iron micro spheres are still iron and will fall to the earth before traveling too far unless carried by a force like the dust cloud from the collapses.

Quote:
The heat of an office fire is extremely high temperature.
Residential fires burn at around 1400oF. Unless you have data confirming higher temperatures for office fires then that is a good estimate of how hot the fires were. The vaporized lead condensed on the fibers after they were blown into tiny pieces. Any lead vapors during the fires would have vented with the smoke and the collapse put out the those fires so there would be virtually no vapors during the collapse.

Quote:
The melted lead was vaporized during the collapse which was the energy equal over 200 TONS of TNT.
You will have to produce data to prove that the collapse produced the necessary temperatures to vaporize lead if you want to make that claim.

Quote:
jet fuel fires exceed 1200oF
Jet fuel burns at 500-600oF in open air.
http://mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm

Quote:
was there a whole floor of UPS in the WTC?
The batteries were most likely nickel-cadmium because they are lighter and have a longer shelf life but again, the collapse put the office fires out. The vaporized lead condensed on the fibers after they were blown into tiny pieces.
Christopher7 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 March 2011, 06:29 PM   #115
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The overpressure of the dust cloud created by the collapses forced the dust all thru the Bankers Trust building. Dust from the debris pile was stirred up in the cleanup process adding to the dust in the gouge area but not all the areas reached by the dust cloud.
What? You are making up nonsense with the only source as you.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No, the dust samples were collected from various places in and on top of the Bankers Trust building.
Iron micro spheres are still iron and will fall to the earth before traveling too far unless carried by a force like the dust cloud from the collapses.
Source, show me the source. Because the paper tell me the dust came from after the clean up, which means the melted steel stuff is from clean up too.

You better read the paper again.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Residential fires burn at around 1400oF. Unless you have data confirming higher temperatures for office fires then that is a good estimate of how hot the fires were. The vaporized lead condensed on the fibers after they were blown into tiny pieces. Any lead vapors during the fires would have vented with the smoke and the collapse put out the those fires so there would be virtually no vapors during the collapse.
OOPS, lead vapor becomes a hazard above 1000 F. You just gave me 1400 F. Source your stuff; look it up. Would 200 TONS of TNT kinetic energy vaporize melted Pb?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
You will have to produce data to prove that the collapse produced the necessary temperatures to vaporize lead if you want to make that claim.

Jet fuel burns at 500-600oF in open air.
http://mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm
... studies show jet fuel melts aluminum alloys. Why do you cherry pick the wrong study? Wait, it says...
980°C (1796 °F) Confirmation it melts Al. Do you read your sources, and understand the WTC was not open air?

Dude; I was in the USAF, I have been at aircraft crashes, the Al melts in fires from jet fuel. I have studies that show temperatures in jet fuel fires get to 1200 F and melt Al. Your source says 1796 F.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The batteries were most likely nickel-cadmium because they are lighter and have a longer shelf life but again, the collapse put the office fires out. The vaporized lead condensed on the fibers after they were blown into tiny pieces.
Seriously, why do you make this up as you go?

The collapse most likely vaporized the liquid Pb, with the energy of over 200 TONS of TNT from the collapse. Think about it, 200 2,000 pound bombs worth of kinetic energy.

Batteries were lead acid. Better get a new source.

Do you own UPS? Lead Acid. Let me check again.
Yep, lead acid. Pb.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2...logy.Final.pdf This study used dust collected after the WTC clean up.

Last edited by beachnut; 24th March 2011 at 07:32 PM.
beachnut 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 March 2011, 07:45 PM   #116
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Better source of lead and somewhat of a clarification of what the "WTC Event" is referring to:

Quote:
Building materials from which the WTC Towers were constructed include structural steel, asbestos-containing insulation material, other insulating fibrous material (mineral wool and glass fibers), cement and aggregate (concrete), wallboard, ceiling tiles, ducts, wiring, paint, plate glass, and other components. Building contents of the WTC included computers and other electronic equipment, fluorescent lights, furniture, office supplies, and a myriad of other items. The brittle and friable components of these materials were pulverized during the collapse and the combustible components were partially burned in the ensuing fires.

The catastrophic structural collapse of the WTC resulted in coarse fragmentation as well as fine particle dust generation including asbestos and various chemicals of concern. The hazardous materials in the dust originated from many common sources. The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building materials collapsed during the WTC Event containing an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos. (NRDC, 2002) Additionally, 50,000 personal computers were destroyed, with each containing approximately 4 pounds of lead. (NRDC, 2002) Additionally, thousands of fluorescent light bulbs, thousands of light switches and other mercury-containing items were destroyed, releasing thousands of grams of mercury into the surrounding environment. These materials, properly contained and applied in their consumer products and form, presented no particular environmental or health hazard. It was, however, the pulverization of these items caused by the WTC collapse that liberated and rendered them bio-accessible, thus creating an environmental hazard.
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2...logy.Final.pdf

There's an easy 100 tons of shredded lead for ya!
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

Last edited by Justin39640; 24th March 2011 at 07:46 PM.
Justin39640 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 March 2011, 08:45 PM   #117
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by C7
The overpressure of the dust cloud created by the collapses forced the dust all thru the Bankers Trust building. Dust from the debris pile was stirred up in the cleanup process adding to the dust in the gouge area but not all the areas reached by the dust cloud.
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
What? You are making up nonsense with the only source as you.
Wrong.
You did not read my second post:
RJ Lee Group report 2003
Pg 4 [pdf pg 5]
"The pressure differential was caused by the onrush of the WTC Dust cloud that was created by the collapse of the WTC Towers with a low pressure inside Building components and high pressure outside. A huge pressure difference was created that caused large quantities of dust laden air to move through unplanned pathways. Individual components or devices with internal spaces effectively acted like a vacuum cleaner pulling the dust into them with great force."

There was no such huge pressure difference during the cleanup.

Originally Posted by C7
No, the dust samples were collected from various places in and on top of the Bankers Trust building.
Iron micro spheres are still iron and will fall to the earth before traveling too far unless carried by a force like the dust cloud from the collapses.
Quote:
Source, show me the source. Because the paper tell me the dust came from after the clean up, which means the melted steel stuff is from clean up too.
Wrong again.
"The collapse of a major building can produce significant quantities of dust and debris comprised of the construction materials and the contents of the building. . . . . The WTC disaster uniquely combined several cataclysmic destructive processes in a single event. This report evaluates the features of the WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances deposited in the Building as a result of the collapse, ground impact, fires, pressure forces, and other phenomena arising from the WTC Event.

You better read the paper again.

Quote:
OOPS, lead vapor becomes a hazard above 1000 F. You just gave me 1400 F.
But the vapor left the building with the smoke.

Quote:
Would 200 TONS of TNT kinetic energy vaporize melted Pb?
Show me a source that says how much heat would be created in a building collapse.

Quote:
WRONG studies show jet fuel melts aluminum.
The company that makes jet fuel says it burns at 500-600oF in open air. You want a letter from God?

Quote:
980°C (1796 °F) Confirmation it melts Al. Do you read your sources, and understand the WTC was not open air??? lol
Wrong yet again. Open air means not in a jet engine. OK, if you hold a piece of aluminum behind a jet engine you can melt it but it's not a particularly good idea.

Quote:
Dude; I was in the USAF, I have been at aircraft crashes, the Al melts in fires from jet fuel. I have studies that show temperatures in jet fuel fires get past 1200 F and melt Al.
Source?

Quote:
Batteries were lead acid.
Source?

Because of the weight; ~540 lb/ft3 v ~710 lb/ft3
http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra2.html
and long life; [12 v 20 yrs]
http://www.emergencypowersystems.org...ure11-08R1.pdf

the backup systems were most likely nickel-cadmium.

"They are used in aviation, rail and mass transit, backup power for telecoms . . . . ."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-...nted_cell_type

Last edited by Christopher7; 24th March 2011 at 10:32 PM.
Christopher7 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 March 2011, 09:12 PM   #118
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
Better source of lead and somewhat of a clarification of what the "WTC Event" is referring to:

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2...logy.Final.pdf

There's an easy 100 tons of shredded lead for ya!
Well done.

OK, there was plenty of lead present.

"The brittle and friable components of these materials were pulverized during the collapse and the combustible components were partially burned in the ensuing fires."

However

It takes a while or extreme temperatures to heat lead to the point of vaporization and the collapse put the office fires out. Another source of heat vaporized the lead in seconds on the way down and into the Bankers Trust building.

Just think of all the possibilities:

Thermite

???
Christopher7 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 March 2011, 11:10 PM   #119
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Well done.

OK, there was plenty of lead present.

"The brittle and friable components of these materials were pulverized during the collapse and the combustible components were partially burned in the ensuing fires."

However

It takes a while or extreme temperatures to heat lead to the point of vaporization and the collapse put the office fires out. Another source of heat vaporized the lead in seconds on the way down and into the Bankers Trust building.

Just think of all the possibilities:

Thermite

???
How do you get your lead in the thermite? You make this up as you go.

Mineral wool made before 1970 already had lead in it, vaporized as it was made. The heat in the WTC was enough to liberate vapor at the levels in the study done after the WTC clean up.

Source? No temperature to go with your extreme? What temperature are vapors present from lead, Pb? Present proof for your claims; like science stuff.

The fires did not go out in the collapse, they kept burning because fuel from the WTC was still there, on fire.

Al from aircraft melts in jet fuel fires. You have failed to find the study? It is on-line. good luck, you posted the max temperate burning of jet fuel, at 980°C (1796 °F), you refute your own claim. You claim 1796 F in a source you gave me, I have source from my air force classes that open pools of jet fuel can reach 2,000 F. And another source fuel fires reach 1200 F in a seconds and start melting Al. This means you are cherry picking, and ignoring.
Quote:
found another 800 c for jet fuel fire; can 911 truth? No
Most UPS products use lead acid batteries - I forgot to tell you why, but you are not trying to listen. Not a single Ni-Cd in my UPS. What does your UPS have? Pb, when the batteries shorted, what happens? Ever seen a battery explode? Sizzle?

Last edited by beachnut; 25th March 2011 at 12:06 AM. Reason: found another 800 c for jet fuel
beachnut 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 25th March 2011, 03:25 AM   #120
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Well done.

OK, there was plenty of lead present.

"The brittle and friable components of these materials were pulverized during the collapse and the combustible components were partially burned in the ensuing fires."

However

It takes a while or extreme temperatures to heat lead to the point of vaporization and the collapse put the office fires out. Another source of heat vaporized the lead in seconds on the way down and into the Bankers Trust building.

Just think of all the possibilities:

Thermite

???
I work on industrial batteries. You can melt chunks of lead with basically a sterno. That's one way we sweat inter-cell connectors. The smaller the pieces the easier they are to melt. Lead shredded into very very tiny pieces would be very easy to melt, especially in the massive and very hot underground fires after the collapse.

The report you cite says "pulverized during the collapse and the combustible components were partially burned in the ensuing fires."
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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

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 11:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.