Making The World A More Dangerous Place

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
,
421

Chris, it's been twenty years since my AOE degree… I've been in steel and concrete for about ten. 
Sorry about the JPL which someone noted.  Regardless, the automobile engine is not designed to melt… and yet it does slowly melt, which is why you lose performance.  But what I was saying is that in a sufficiently oxygenating environment, you can get melting. 

And no, the rocket stove doesn't melt, because the fuel plus oxygen doesn't get it high enough.  There are increases that help.  On the other hand, a Civil War era catherine furnace definitely did melt the iron, and the coal wasn't as high a grade of fuel as jet fuel. 

My point is that the macroscopic structure of the furnace can go a long ways towards making it happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_furnace

(Oh, and BTW… to the person who said "well, you must be a lousy engineer": whether I am a good engineer or lousy engineer, is not dependent upon whether I believe the Truther platform.  It is dependent upon how I do my job.  My caveat that I am NOT a PE, but have done engineering for concrete-steel bridges for the last so many years, was simply a caveat of what my opinions may or may not be worth, take it for whatever you want.  But your comment was character assassination, not an aspect of rational and civil discussion.)
 

422
I readily admit that accepting the level of evil on display around 9/11, and countless other disturbing recent events, is emotionally difficult to  accept, but it's really quite necessary if we are to have any hope of seeing things as they really are.
There is the crux of the matter, but that statement also contains an enormous problem because both the statement above and my post earlier are from a purely technically point of view incorrect in the same way statements about melting aluminum hulls explosively destroying steel are technically incorrect.  We use the words mind, heart and emotions with false pretense. Because we do so, understanding is not possible.  Not reality, not each other.

The words that follow are not meant to convince anyone of anything nor promote understanding. Because understanding is not possible.  The purpose is to condemn, so when we are aware of time, we will not be able to claim ignorance and the full force of judgment will be upon us.

We use the word mind, pretending that we are talking with and about our greatest mental capacity, but instead we use and are talking about small mind which works within and under our desires and is completely constrained by our own conditioning. We use the words heart and emotions, pretending we are talking with and about love which is the state where the veil between the self and reality is lifted, where conflict and division cannot exist, instead we are talking about desires which are the seat of hatred and narcissism.  We claim that the ugliness around us is the result of some other group, religion, or nationality and that we have nothing to do with it, while all the time we use our desires and small mind to construct the reality that is around us.

We must condemn the self so that the Self can have life and breath.

423

I'm sure dogs combined the 'shouldn't have' - because they'd potentially be up to no good, and 'shouldn't have' - because they are land-locked (first mention), and could probably do better things with the resources that would be sunk in a big floating lump of steel that probably wouldn't be of much use anyway (second mention :o)

424

[quote=Stan Robertson]Tracker,
You raised a good point with respect to WTC7, but even in that case, the collapse was uneven, messy and was not a free fall, despite superficial appearances.

 
[/quote]
Would you provide some graphic support for that statement?
From the many videos I have seen, I would not describe it as uneven or messy, and, yes, it was free fall.

425

[quote=MarkM][quote=Stan Robertson]
Tracker,

You raised a good point with respect to WTC7, but even in that case, the collapse was uneven, messy and was not a free fall, despite superficial appearances.

[/quote] Would you provide some graphic support for that statement? From the many videos I have seen, I would not describe it as uneven or messy, and, yes, it was free fall.[/quote]

Stan, that right there proves that you have not looked into WTC7 nor studied it with any rigor.

Frankly I expect more from a self-described physics educator who should know and value the importance of making fact-based claims.  Especially a physics professor who says:

I am a retired physics prof. I have spent some time in the last few months examining the WTC7 collapse.
There you are both claiming authority and to have done 'a few months' of research.

Well, in one Google search ("WTC7 free fall NIST") I can find out that NIST itself has been forced to admit that 2.25 seconds of WTC7 is pure free fall.  That search took me roughly 3 seconds to perform.

I'm happy to have your authority and experience here discussing a seminal, important event, but not if you are going to be waving authority while doing sloppy "research."  I would imagine that if you had a student presenting that way they'd not get a terribly good grade?

 

426

Michael Rudmin said,

Regardless, the automobile engine is not designed to melt... and yet it does slowly melt, which is why you lose performance
Please describe further the processes you are referring to.  Engines do lose performance over time due to a combination of mechanical wear to rings and cylinder walls (loss of compression), chemical/corrosion attack on valve seals, etc., but I don't know of any mechanisms that would fall under the category of, "slowly melting". 

That being said, the fact is, were you to run most internal combustion engines without their water-based cooling systems, they would start glowing cherry red and things will fail  … but the majority of the heat is coming, again, from friction/mechanical in this case as the materials expand, increasing the friction/mechanical heat even more.          

427
"Could."  "May have"  "Would have."  "Our studies."

These are all either 100% unsupported assertions or complete bullshit because they performed no studies nor presented any data.

Finally, just using common sense…if aluminum tended to react violently with ordinary materials during fires, then it would not be used structurally ever.    We might as well coat buildings with TNT.  Right?  I mean we do get to use common sense here. don't we?  So, just using my own powers of observation, I will tell you that I see aluminum in every single building, train station, and walkway in every major city I've ever been to.

Carbon blob…please explain why you suddenly think that Aluminum is such a violently explosive substance that it took down three buildings on 9/11 but literally zero before or afterwards.   

Next…

[/quote]

Good point, assuming aluminium has been studied in that way. This would mean the sorts of mechanisms the author proposes have been studied and experimented with. I have no idea if this is the case or not. (Which isn't to say dangerous materials are not already used in building, including powdered aluminium coatings.)

Maybe the authors should write to fire safety authorities with their mechanism for possible high temperature reactions, and see how credible it is in their eyes, good experiment would at least confirm or rule all this out.

Trouble is all these arguments eventually come down to complex and in-depth engineering and science arguments, and the number of people able to really debate rapidly dwindles the more expertise is needed. Do I really want a chemistry degree just to get into the 9/11 event ? Not really.

Cheers.

428

There's some more
https://www.sintef.no/en/corporate-news/new-theory-explains-collapse-of-twin-towers/

"The aluminium industry has reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980. Alcoa Aluminium carried out an experiment under controlled conditions, in which 20 kilos of aluminium smelt were allowed to react with 20 kilos of water, to which some rust was added. The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres in diameter."

"The aluminium industry had reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980," he said.

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust.

"The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres (100 feet) in diameter," Simensen said.

By comparison, the aircraft carried 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the towers, according to his calculations.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-09-theory-collapse-twin-towers.html#jCp

"The aluminium industry had reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980," he said.

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust.

"The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres (100 feet) in diameter," Simensen said.

By comparison, the aircraft carried 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the towers, according to his calculations.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-09-theory-collapse-twin-towers.html#jCp


So, yeah, someone should test this out.

429

from posters that I thought would know better. 
My last post on this topic. I need something to counteract my ever growing sense of hopelessness!

Been listening to this quite a bit lately…

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSif77IVQdY

430

While I am a materials engineer (chemist) in my day job, and like to view the facts through this lens, I also lean very heavily on pattern recognition.  One particular pattern that I have recognized in relation to 9/11 is that there are subject matter experts of many different stripes, including architects, airline pilots, chemists, airline attendants, and even demolition experts, who, once they really open their mind, either purposefully, or by accident (you will see where I am going with this in a minute) develop a cognitive dissonance that drives their awakening.
As the manager of a team of engineers, many of them PhD level, I value their intuition.  Through the lens of their own experience and education in very specialized areas… they are going to see things that I don't.  They are going to intuit cause and effect in working to solve technical problems in ways that I cannot.  Often my job is simply to recognize when they are on the scent of the answer and clear the way for them to close.  In this same way I have learned to recognize the value of the many experts who weigh on 9/11.  Chemists know unreacted nanothermite in dust samples when they see it… this stuff does not grow on trees.  Airline pilots know that regular commercial 767's cannot survive in flight at the speeds reported by NTSB for flight 175, and flight attendants know that you cannot spray mace in the front of a pressurized plane (as reported on one of the released FBI phone call transcripts from 9/11) without it quickly affecting everyone on the plane.

These are not the reactions of generalist bloggers who look for conspiracy everywhere… these are the gathered insights of specialists who, like many of us here, are drawn toward the truth like a moth to a flame.  These speak to me.  There are many more than my short list above even suggests… if I get the time I will write a long form post on this topic… but for now, I want to present what I believe is the most relevant of this genre to the discussion of WTC-7.  The title for this video says it all;   "Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko sees the World Trade Center building 7 collapse for the first time."   Watch his intuitive, gut response.  Very, very powerful if you know what you are looking at.  Also, just so you know, Danny Jowenko has since died in an inexplicable single car accident.  

 

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2oZpXVOvdE

431

Great post Jim, Thanks.

432

CarbonBlob said,

Maybe the authors should write to fire safety authorities with their mechanism for possible high temperature reactions, and see how credible it is in their eyes, good experiment would at least confirm or rule all this out.

Trouble is all these arguments eventually come down to complex and in-depth engineering and science arguments, and the number of people able to really debate rapidly dwindles the more expertise is needed. Do I really want a chemistry degree just to get into the 9/11 event ? Not really.

This is a smokescreen meant to cause the less technically inclined to believe that there is no such thing as, "settled science".  There is no debate here.  There is no need to debate whether WTC-7 collapsed as it did due to beams sagging in a few areas... NIST put some of their engineers on the task of finding a way to, "prove" in structural modelling software that it came down via the fires, and they failed so miserably that the simulation released to the public had to be cut off early so that the obviousness of the assymetry of the modeled collapse was not quite so obvious;
http://rememberbuilding7.org/nist-collapse-model/

 

NIST Collapse Model

More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008.  The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse.  In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:[i]
“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model.  The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias.  If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias.  Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”
 

Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:[ii]

 

433

…he says that its odd, he can't explain it.  How is that an affirmation of the CT?  Plus, like most videos of the final collapse, he saw only the north side of WTC7 which was the least damaged before the final collapse and superficially appears most like the CT story.  The south side was where the catastrophic damage occurred.  The quote at the bottom of the video was said well before he knew the circumstances.  He was judging solely based on the video.  Once he knew the circumstances he couldn't explain it.
Further, I don't doubt his assessment that 30-40 men with the requisite skills and equipment could have done it on (presumably) the day of the attack.  Unless all those men were firefighters, it simply didn't get done that way.  Firefighters were the last people in the building for most of the day and had evacuated all others.  Then the firefighters left at least two hours before the final collapse.  They were ordered out by the chief firefighter on the scene because the building was already showing signs of collapse long before the video above shows.  

If the work was done before the attacks, how did they know that WTC1 would collapse exactly as it did, thereby providing cover for the insidious plot?

 

434

Who knows where the Shankville plane was heading?  What if it was targeted for WTC7 but something went awry in that plan?

I don't know any of the "whys" and those are mostly dead ends because we can argue about them endlessly while going nowhere.

But melted steel beams?  Those did not happen because the south side was damaged, they got melted because of heat that exceeded the melting point of structural steel.

Note this photo and description from a FEMA study of WTC7 debris:

(Source)

One does not have to be a metallurgical expert to understand that even an unexplained, total, symmetrical collapse cannot cause a major structural beam to become the equivalent of Swiss cheese and have unexplained sulfidation and high temperature anomalies as evidenced by visual, microscopic and chemical analysis.

Even if you could prove to me that WTC7 came down due to entirely explicable mechanical means, you'd still have to explain this (and many other) beam fragments.

As with the fact that Kennedy's head rocketed backwards, not forwards (as a young Dan Rather avowed to the nation after being the only newscaster allowed to see the Zapruder film) here we have a piece of evidence that simply exposes the entire tale of mechanical collapse as a complete sham.

435

Chris,
Trying to determine a possible cause of the collapse of WTC7 from an examination of multiple, largely unscaled videos is difficult and I cannot summarize it by producing definitive "data". With my previous comments I intended to claim a modicum of competence for performing an examination and also to offer my own opinion against the likelihood of deliberate destruction. I should have made it clear that I have not reached a conclusion for or against the use of thermite or other explosives. I have seen too many conflicting reports on that and I don't know which, if any, are credible. I have seen considerable evidence that structural steel got hot enough to seriously weaken it. A good example is shown in the video (post No. 350) shown by Banker's Slave. But I have seen no good evidence for the presence of molten steel.

What I have spent the most time analyzing has been the collapse of the building. A good summary of the sequence of events is shown in the picture below taken from here.

There are many web sites both for and against the conspiracy theories of 9/11. How one regards them seems to me to depend upon one's world view rather than any definitive evidence. For that reason, I will quit here after having registered my opinion and skip the food fight.

Stan

436

The scaling is remarkably easy to accomplish because we know the exact scale of each floor of WTC7.   You couldn't have a more accurate scale if there were large format yardsticks taped to the sides.

What are you referring to?  I don't understand. It sounds reasonable, but it's really not…

There are issues of deinterlacing the videos, using appropriate reference points, assuring you sample every available frame, etc and so forth.  Typical video analysis.  But scaling is not among the issues involved. 

Again, none of this is a matter of opinion, but of science and data.  Happy to have science based discussions at any moment.  I too have no interest in food fights or attempting to have a discussion where each bit of data that refutes a position is ignored and a new canard is hoisted.

437

You said,

...he says that its odd, he can't explain it.  How is that an affirmation of the CT?
I interpret his words differently.. the thing he was unable to explain was how a CT could have been pulled off in the hours since the building was first damaged, given the complexities involved.  Within that context, he could not explain it.  That the whole thing could have been pre-planned was not even in the range of possible answers he was considering at that point.

I am constantly amazed at how hard smart folks will work to defend their worldview and their comfort with the official government story…     

Danny never changed his tune - he always maintained that it was controlled collapse - a demolition; 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4
438

So, if the other plane was headed for WTC7, then would WTC7 have to have been only partially demolished in the same way as the other towers - all the floors below the floor of impact ?
If that's the case, and they had to demolish WTC7 from top to bottom as the plane didn't arrive when it should, then can we surmise that WTC7 was wired from top to bottom ?

And if that's the case, then why not WTC1 & 2  rigged from top to bottom ?

And if that's the case, then would there be unused charges on the floors (WTC1&2) above the plane impacts ?

Are there any indication of unused thermite from the top floors ? Plus detonation equipment or wires ?

In short, why would WTC7 be wired differently than the other two ? And where is the unused thermite and etc from the top floors of 1&2 ?

There were 30 floors above the collision point of one of the towers, that must be a lot of rigging and with much less stuff piled on top of it than the rest of the tower.

439

The dilemma you describe is true of just about any important subject with vested interests.   Anthropogenic Climate change comes to mind.  Any subject of import can be muddled with competing studies to the point where people throw up there hands and say It's too hard to know. Indeed that is the primary strategy of vested interests in preserving their agenda.

  That is why Occams razor, or common sense plus the use of incontrovertible fundamentals such as the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, probability distribution  etc  are such useful tools. to cut through the clutter  Because there is a binary answer here.  Not to the who and exactly how  but the what.   

The PhD authored  study that Carbon blob referenced made the case that the observed molten metal flows and high temperatures failed structure, pulverized concrete etc were caused by the melting into liquid aluminum of the two aircraft and its' subsequent interaction with elements present in the structure.  (note explicitly triggered by the aircraft not the aluminum cladding) The argument made with authority of science  and lots of  chemical formulae reads quite plausibly but fails the Occam razor test when you contrast the number of unproven dependencies inherent in it's theories. or more simply you include the entirety of the events,  ie lack of a melting plane in building 7,  physical evidence of presence of uncombusted nano thermite in dust samples hell the observed gravitaional free fall speed of collapse 

Yet CB rejoinder is that Thermite has not "been proven" ether I would argue that it has been proven to be present by and perhaps more significantly nanothermitic based controlled demolition is the proven most simple explanation of how to drop a building at the observed speeds in the observed manner, let alone three on the same day.    The probability of those three buildings coming down in that manner  due to some hypothetical combination of unproven metallurgical/structural causality is nonsensical.

Which brings us to the realm of the psychological and the humans attempts to deal with cognitive dissonance. The counter explanations that  are put forward exhibit classical symptoms of of denial behavior  

You are correct that that perception is dependent upon world view.  That is the only logical explanation why a a trained physicist can attempt to rationalize away evidence like free fall speeds, molten steel etc  the implications of the evidence of controlled demolition contravene the dominant narrative that underpins the very essence of our "American identity /being.

   If one is able to broaden their perspective  to a world centric perspective with an appreciation for the historically common use of false flag operations  it becomes much easier to follow the quite frankly simple chain of logic that is so clearly evidenced here.  

 

mememonkey

440

…wrong.  Because no matter the how you cut it, the preparations would have had to be done after the planes hit WTC1 and 2.  Placing explosives and cutting columns before the planes hit would assume that the conspirators knew what kind of damage would be done to WTC7.  I submit that is impossible.  As I read somewhere (sorry can't cite it now) as building collapses progress they become nearly infinitely more difficult to predict.  How could such perfect knowledge of how WTC1 would collapse into WTC7 preexist the planes hitting the buildings?
Jim H

[quote]I am constantly amazed at how hard smart folks will work to defend their worldview and their comfort with the official government story.[/quote]

In this instance you have it backward.  I'm just addressing the easy stuff.  You and your fellow CTers have to answer those kinds of questions before you get to the hard stuff of physics and chemistry.

Chris

[quote]Who knows where the Shankville plane was heading?  What if it was targeted for WTC7 but something went awry in that plan?

I don't know any of the "whys" and those are mostly dead ends because we can argue about them endlessly while going nowhere.[/quote]

C'mon Chris, that's too simplistic a dodge.  WTC1&2 were the obvious targets.  You would have to come up with a convincing argument of why they would target WTC7 and mistakenly hit WTC1.  Wildly implausible.

As far as melted steel beams, I am not a physicist or chemist, but it strikes me that just looking at laboratory analyses of the melting temp of aluminum and steel does not address the chaotic environment of the kind of conflagration that happened on 9/11.  As I noted earlier, end results become increasingly difficult to predict as collapses progress.  I, and I guess most people on this blog, cannot begin to understand all the forces at work here, particularly when this is an episode of first impression.  Nothing like this has ever been seen before.

As anyone who follows the climate change thread should know, I rarely agree with Stan.  In this case though, he makes some good points.  The pic he included depicts the collapse approximately as I understood it before deciding to enter this fray.  The problem to me is, again, all the contrary explanations rely on videos taken from the north side of WTC7.  I would suggest merely seeing the collapse from that vantage point is very misleading as to what was going on inside and on the south side of the building.  In fact, after the fact photos (according to this analysis http://debunking911.com/pull.htm ) show that the south side collapsed first and the north side collapsed on top of the rubble from the rest of the building.  It was not a pancake collapse.

I'm not making these arguments from any "world view."  I'm a believer in science, and the studies (as far as I understand them having read 2nd hand sources) simply don't support the CT theories (as far as I understand them having read 2nd hand sources).