Goodbye, Mr Roberts

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

The core columns of the WTC towers provided a truly immense steel heat sink. It would have taken many hours at a minimum to begin to heat them to the point of deformation. There is a recording of the firemen up to the 78th floor of WTC2 (in the stairwell within the center core) just before the collapse began thereabouts. That fire had only been burning 56 minutes at that time and much of the original jet fuel exploded in the air outside the building at the time of impact. The remaining jet fuel burnt out (if my memory serves) within 5 or 10 minutes after impact. There was simply not even close to enough heat generated to weaken the steel core at the time WTC2 collapsed.

Again, on what basis do you make this assumption? Have you cast steel before, or studied how it is done? Without referring to my earlier explanation on another thread, do you understand the principles of hot working, warm working, and cold working, and also of grain growth and crystallization?

If your assumption is or very similar to as follows (and this is based on your own statement), "Steel must reach a certain temperature for its structure to be reduced, and that is the only interaction between heat energy and the strength of steel; therefore since there could not have been enough heat energy to achieve the relevant temperature, the steel could not have had its strength noticeably reduced," then you are incorrect on at least two accounts.

- First, the process of applying a tremendous load, which under room temperature would only cause creep, would serve to alter the the properties of steel more rapidly as it became heated to more significant fractions of its melting temperature. Warm working takes place at 30% of the melting point, and that is the low end estimate of the temperature range. In fact, applying force to a warm piece of steel is one of the numerous ways in which it is shaped or treated.

- Second, yes, steel has good thermal conductivity to relatively quickly evenly distribute the heat. However, it has relatively low heat capacity (0.460 kJ per kg per degree K, compared to 4.184 for water). Any fire near steel, almost without regard to shape or size of that steel, will quickly deliver the thermal energy necessary to raise its temperature in a rapid fashion near the points of contact. You already know this presumably from experience with stainless steel pots and pans; void of water, these heat up very rapidly and rather uniformly. You can do an experiment with just a lighter and a pot you were going to throw away by putting the flame on one spot for, say, 56 minutes or so and let me know if that area is hot. Furthermore, there is evidence that much of the fire in the floors above your favorite one (78th) was more concentrated towards the center.

As an aside, the effects of thermal expansion on steel should not be neglected. While relatively small, the change in temperatures both up to the maximum experienced and in some places back down to room temperature were rapid. I have read some theories that this played a roll in reducing overall structural integrity and it seems plausible.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Sorry, I lost track of what building we were talking about on page 2006 of this ongoing debate.

You make an interesting point however (whether this was your intention or not I don't know.)

Any sufficiently complicated technology scheme is magic eh - whatever they say (I've got a life to lead and can't spend the next umpteen months unraveling this thing.)

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Again, on what basis do you make this assumption?

I've read the sources to which I've provided links, and the sources to which they link. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site comes to mind.

Personally, I'm a kernel hacker, not a metallurgist. But I have a pretty good brain and more time than most on my hands to read stuff.

Have you studied the material I recommended to you, past dissing the first video because it didn't have detailed answers to all the questions you could concoct?

Sometimes I get the feeling in these discussions that I am dealing with people who are responding (at least at the conscious verbal level) more like this was a high school debating contest rather than a co-operative search for understanding some difficult subjects.

If there is a particular point which you would like to discuss more carefully, then let me know. In the particular case of the heat and the two WTC towers, I am certain that there was not any where close to enough heat, especially in WTC2, to structurally weaken all 47 core columns to the point of failure. Are you claiming otherwise? This is the sub-sub-topic we are discussing here. Please be clear what you are saying, beyond just rebutting where rebuttal seems possible.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

If your assumption is or very similar to as follows (and this is based on your own statement), "Steel must reach a certain temperature for its structure to be reduced, and that is the only interaction between heat energy and the strength of steel; therefore since there could not have been enough heat energy to achieve the relevant temperature, the steel could not have had its strength noticeably reduced," then you are incorrect on at least two accounts.

That was not my assumption in the general case. In this particular case (WTC2) we need more heat than we have, given the load applied.

- First, the process of applying a tremendous load, ...

Of course. Sufficient load will bend steel, and the right combination of load and heat, each insufficient by itself, can deform or destroy the structural integrity of a piece of steel.

Where was the tremendous load, above and beyond (1) the initial plane impact, which did indeed destroy some of the steel, and (2) the long standing static load which was always there and easily supported both before and after the plane impact? Look at the videos. The upper buildings of WTC1 & 2 are not dropped anywhere. They start crumbling exploding from the bottom up, allowing the upper portion to sink into the lower building. The only way that the upper buildings could have been dropped (as would be necessary to create a tremendous impulse, above and beyond the everyday static load) would be if some floor or two in the impact zone failed massively and suddenly, across the building span. Indeed, that's exactly what happened. It took explosives, clearly visible on the videos and heard by those present, to accomplish that. The heat was no where close to causing sudden full span failure. If one side failed first, as happened in WTC2 and if this was due to heat stress alone, then the other side would have not received any sudden tremendous increase in load that might account for its massively failing a second or two later.

I tried quite carefully to ask the question in the previous paragraph earlier in this thread, and all I got in repy was "For all your examination of trees, you seem to have no concept of the forest."

- Second, yes, steel has good thermal conductivity to relatively quickly evenly distribute the heat. ...

Of course, sufficient heat can destroy steel. What matters is how much heat versus how much steel. In other steel frame building fires, it took substantially longer lasting fires to provide even a modest partial collapse of substantially lighter (thinner and less total mass) steel frames.

Whereas no people were able to survive in the raging infernos that took down six of the top stories in Madrid after 8 or 10 (I forget exactly) hours, and whereas no people were able to survive in the similar fire that took down one side of one lightly constructed wing of the architecture building in Delft again after some 8 to 10 hours (with perhaps, I can't tell, only the portion of the building above the fire collapsing at that time), and whereas WTC1, which had a more direct hit presumably taking out more core columns and leaving more jet fuel to burn within the building took nearly two hours for its collapse (which itself I for one don't think came down just due to that fire even then), still in the case of WTC2 after only 56 minutes of a cooler (less jet fuel) fire on a building with less core damage than WTC1 and with people alive above, just below and even standing visibly in the broken exterior wall where the plane hit (all indications of temperatures below 100 or 120 degrees F), the building suffered a sudden catastrophic total collapse.

I observe substantial less heat, shorter time, less preliminary physical damage, but still total collapse rather than (as in the case of all other steel frame fires I know of save the WTC on 9/11) no or at most rather limited collapse.

Then study, please, the Herbst survey that I linked above. The list of evidence that contradicts the official story and must therefore be ignored or discredited by less than honest means is stunning in its variety and length.

One of the problems I face by focusing this 9/11 discussion on the physics of the WTC building failures is that some will think that since the rest of the official story presumably holds, being unchallenged here, therefore the offical story for the physics of the WTC building failures deserves the benefit of their doubts.

The whole bloody thing is a massive con job. Wake up!

[jtabeb]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I am as delighted with and confident of my understanding of such matters as I trust you are with yours. Fret not.

P.S. -- Understand however that I find the proclamations of most of the more public atheists of our time to be more objectionable than the proclamations of most religious leaders. What passes for atheism these days is regrettably anti-spiritual.

Here is the wikipedia answer:
Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.^[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.^[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

Okay, Cow, I see if you are using the third definition

(just asking, cause I always understood atheism to be a religion too, in the sense that it is a "belief" system, vs. say an Agnostic, who only allows that which is "provable" to be incorporated into their conceptual understanding of the world).


I learned a long time ago that people who think they can prove the superiority of one belief system over another, are doomed to failure because it's an impossible, BY DEFINITION! I admit that in the past I was guilty of this fallacy, but have long since corrected that behavior.

(I tried proving to a friend who was a fundamentalist Christian that the Earth was indeed older than 6,000 years by showing them a clip of Lewis Black). Big Mistake! (Though it was funny, it almost cost me the friendship). It was made all the more worse by my comparison of objective reality vs a belief system, that really doesn't help, even though cocky me thought I was doing a good job proving the point an winning the argument. What I realized instead, was that to his person, I was belittling them by attacking their belief system. So my big take-away from that experience was to not agitate people on their belief system AS LONG as it does not affect Policy outcomes. As soon as a "Belief System" becomes a part of policy formation, I shut them down, because, as you all know, beliefs can be flawed, but 2+2 has to equal 4. That's why belief, should play no part in the policy process, and (I think) everyone should advocate policies grounded in objective reality, vs permitting beliefs to taint the process. It's the only thing that FAIR to everyone. (Remember, your ability to express yourself by throwing a punch stops one inch from my face, not at the bridge of my nose).





So that is why to make sense of the world I try be objective, and see what "IS" and to drive my actions from that.

Ayn Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth", grounded in reality, and aimed at defining man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.^[2]
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
—Ayn Rand,

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Here is the wikipedia answer:
Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.^[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.^[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

Okay, Cow, I see if you are using the third definition

I am certain there are no deities ... quite certain.

By deities I mean sentient beings of great power and intelligence who consciously took a critical role in any of designing, creating or managing this universe or any substantial portion thereof.

No such beings. None.

I also hold that all the thoughts and works of man for all time barely scratch the surface of understanding all that is and all its past, present or potential patterns. In particular our (human) mathematics, sciences, technologies and engineering disciplines operate on just a few rather narrow planes of existence.

Though I don't practice such myself, I hold that the practices and rituals of various spiritually active people are some of the important, even essential, means toward improved understanding.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

That's why belief, should play no part in the policy process,

We all speak in metaphors much of the time. Our minds model bits and pieces of the world and we speak to ourselves and others from within the framework of these models. One can listen to others and sometimes hear what truths they are speaking, and what confusions, looking through and mapping the models they are using.

Your "objective reality" is what you call the portion of the world which is modeled by your minds metaphors. It's ok, on quiet evenings or with trusted company, to slip outside and glimpse (extend your mental models to) other portions of the universe.

[jtabeb]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

It's ok, on quiet evenings or with trusted company, to slip outside and glimpse (extend your mental models to) other portions of the universe.

I do, I read Shirley McClain's book.:p

Seriously, though, I KNOW EXACTLY what you mean. (And I agree). I just think that when it comes to policy that will affect everyone on earth we should be, as grounded in the objective model as possible. That's all.

P.S. You should really get a copy of James Dines "High States" book. I swear, it was a wake up call. To see the principles by which I lead my life (inadvertently and subconsciously, BTW. I just did what works for me) codified in such a detailed way before my eyes was quite the Religious Experience, if you can pardon the term. Makes me wonder about the universality of things. I mean, how can people independently come to parallel simultaneous conclusions, without there being a "universal" Truth?

There is reality that can be plainly perceived, but there is also the reality that we can't consciously perceive. The one that which we only achieve fleeting glimpses of from time to time. This makes it no less valid, just MUCH harder to quantify.;)

[flintlock]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

PC, you should be president of the 9/11 conspiracy association. You almost could convince me at times.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

The core columns of the WTC towers provided a truly immense steel heat sink. It would have taken many hours at a minimum to begin to heat them to the point of deformation. There is a recording of the firemen up to the 78th floor of WTC2 (in the stairwell within the center core) just before the collapse began thereabouts. That fire had only been burning 56 minutes at that time and much of the original jet fuel exploded in the air outside the building at the time of impact. The remaining jet fuel burnt out (if my memory serves) within 5 or 10 minutes after impact. There was simply not even close to enough heat generated to weaken the steel core at the time WTC2 collapsed.

Please show some proof of this assertion.

The jet fuel in question was intended to power a 150+ ton airplane for takeoff and a 2,500 mile flight.

Secondly the entire steel structure isn't in question - it is only the steel on 1 to 5 floors.

Thirdly the fuel load on the 767 was in the neighborhood of 60000 liters. I doubt the entire fuel load burned out in 5 or 10 minutes - I'd think the air requirement itself would prevent that; that much fuel burning that fast is explosive itself and would also suck in air in a firestorm around it.

In fact asserting it burned that quickly makes it MORE likely the steel structure experienced deformation as the full energy of the combustion would be applied in a shorter time period implying higher temperature. Think charcoal fire with vs. without air pumping.

Fourthly the possibility of the majority of fuel burning outside the building seems remote. Thousands of liters of fuel would have left a burning trail down the side the building or would have landed on the surrounding area.

The core columns of the WTC towers provided a truly immense steel heat sink. It would have taken many hours at a minimum to begin to heat them to the point of deformation. There is a recording of the firemen up to the 78th floor of WTC2 (in the stairwell within the center core) just before the collapse began thereabouts.

As impact was on the 90th floor or so, anything on the 78th floor is very possibly irrelevant.

The core columns in toto represent an enormous heat sink, true.

But steel isn't a perfect nor ideal thermal conductor. The area at which the fire was burning is where the vast majority of the heat was applied, and to assume it was evenly spread throughout the entire core column structure is completely incorrect.

I saw the details of that in his other work to which I linked. The video could not contain all details due to time constraints, as he noted therein.

The details still do not answer the question of how this circumstantial evidence means anything.

Simply because a particular column is 'weaker' does not mean it is always the first to fail simply because loads applied are rarely perfectly even. For instances where loads are perfectly even, there are still other possibilities like specific steel bars which were defective or damaged.

As I've asserted before - it isn't that the nano-thermite theory is impossible. It is that it makes a large number of assertions based on probability - and many of these are focusing on low probability events which in fact are not clearly low probability.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Secondly the entire steel structure isn't in question - it is only the steel on 1 to 5 floors.

...

As impact was on the 90th floor or so, anything on the 78th floor is very possibly irrelevant.

The impact area on the South Tower extended from floor 78 to floor 94.

P.S. -- The primary impact area on the South Tower was floors 78 to 82.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Thirdly the fuel load on the 767 was in the neighborhood of 60000 liters. I doubt the entire fuel load burned out in 5 or 10 minutes - I'd think the air requirement itself would prevent that; that much fuel burning that fast is explosive itself and would also suck in air in a firestorm around it.

There was a giant firestorm. Watch the videos when the plane hit the South Tower. There was a huge ball of flames outside the exiting wall immediately upon impact.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

As I've asserted before - it isn't that the nano-thermite theory is impossible. It is that it makes a large number of assertions based on probability - and many of these are focusing on low probability events which in fact are not clearly low probability.

I suppose in the same way I could say that it isn't that the official theory is impossible. It is just that the official story ignores or misrepresents or discredits or suppresses a large amount of evidence, while making a large number of assertions based on no particular evidence whatsoever - many of which are quite low probability.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Please show some proof of this assertion.

If you are asking for more proof of some specific assertion I made, please state which one, and, if you could, please also demonstrate some willingness to follow up on the evidence links which I have already provided and to respond to some of the specific questions which I have already asked you.

When I read your polite request for proof, I will confess to suspecting that it would have been more accurately stated:

I don't believe you yet, so I guess it's your fault for not showing me sufficient proof.

This needs to be a two way street, c1ue. If I'm to continue making the effort to provide you with the best available evidence and explanations, then I would ask that you make the effort to understand them, rather than just respond with your own hypotheticals of the moment and requests for more effort on my part.

If you really don't think it is worth your time to make an investment into understanding the events 9/11, that's OK. Please just state so, that I might not waste my time on fruitless endeavors.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

There was a giant firestorm. Watch the videos when the plane hit the South Tower. There was a huge ball of flames outside the exiting wall immediately upon impact.

From http://911review.com/attack/wtc/impacts.html:

The South Tower impact was off-center, allowing most of the jet fuel to exit the building in a spectacular fireball.

You can click on the above images for larger versions.