Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:Lateral translation requires a lateral load, and lateral movement of large things, like the upper 12 stories of the North Tower, would require a very large lateral load. From where I sit the only significant load acting on the upper section is due to gravity and that is a vertical load. Where does your lateral load to shift the upper section columns out of alignment with those of the lower section come from?
Come on Jeffrey, provide a scientific basis for what you are saying here. Let us see how you came to these conclusions.
You know that the small degree of rotation caused the columns to mis align and they were unrestrained connections 4' above the slab. You were shown this... but ignored it. Also the column ends were 8' below the lateral restraint and the splice connection to the column below was little more than some welded plates to align them for erection purposes. These connection failed and you had the misalignment.
I asked for a scientific basis. That isn't what you provide here.
The 1 degree tilt only causes an offset of 3/8" on the complete opposite side of the building, so no it won't cause misalignment.
So now it sounds like you are saying the splices of the core column sections which were 4 feet above the slab on the 98th floor are what failed and that they just slipped to the side and missed each other. This would still require a lateral load. So how would they do that Jeffrey? Are you actually serious that the core column splices on the 98th floor are what you think failed? If so, why would they fail? How hot would they have needed to get? And why would the columns move even if the splices did fail? The columns were in vertical compression and there was little to no lateral load such as wind or seismic forces that day.
Please comment:
"The number of signatures Gage has on his 2000 List is irrelevant because
(1) Gage's petition with the 2000 signatures makes no mention of controlled demolition or US government involvement, the two central Truther claims. So those signing his petition are not agreeing with the keystone argument: that the buildings fell from Controlled Demolition. The petition calls for a 911 investigation without being specific as to what about 911 should be investigated.
(2) The petition does not state an opinion as to what brought the WTC buildings down. A signer is offering no opinion, certainly not agreeing with Gage. An engineer could sign Gage's petition because he thought al Qaeda rented offices in the buildings and planted explosives. While that is a crazy idea, it nowhere near is as crazy as the claim that the US government wired three massive buildings for a controlled demolition while occupied by some 25,000 tenants and security. (How would you even obtain entrance to the majority of the offices with private locks and security systems?)
(3) About 40% (my count) of the signers are neither architects or engineers. Many of the signers do not have a professional degree. Only a few of the signers have civil engineering degrees and, with two exceptions, those engineers are unreachable. (The two I reached with civil engineering degrees had conducted no analysis or research, which means they were not speaking as engineers).
(4) The "2000 list" has not been audited. How many of those names are legitimate? Many of the names are of people who are unreachable. People who did sign may no longer support a 911 investigation. "
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Please comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...LyYv5Y2YSM
There might be a few ways to get iron microspheres, as all you need to do is make the iron molten and spray it somehow to cause surface tension to form it into a sphere.
However, the by-products of thermite are molten iron and aluminum oxide, and the real interesting part about the thermitic residue found in the dust of the WTC collapses is that when it is ignited it forms iron microspheres and a small chip of it formed a lot more microspheres than Dave Thomas seemed to get out of his box beam section.
You can't be seriously claiming that Dave Thomas' little experiment, that he actually did last summer, is a solid explanation for iron microspheres in the WTC dust, especially since they were found with thermitic material and the thermitic material produces iron microspheres when ignited.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Please comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...LyYv5Y2YSM
There might be a few ways to get iron microspheres, as all you need to do is make the iron molten and spray it somehow to cause surface tension to form it into a sphere.
However, the by-products of thermite are molten iron and aluminum oxide, and the real interesting part about the thermitic residue found in the dust of the WTC collapses is that when it is ignited it forms iron microspheres and a small chip of it formed a lot more microspheres than Dave Thomas seemed to get out of his box beam section.
You can't be seriously claiming that Dave Thomas' little experiment, that he actually did last summer, is a solid explanation for iron microspheres in the WTC dust, especially since they were found with thermitic material and the thermitic material produces iron microspheres when ignited.
I didn't claim anything. But Harrit claimed that there was only one way to form iron microspheres and this proves him wrong.
Remember RJ Lee?
Quote:
"Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust
Well, let's start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many ironâ€based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.
Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.
What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and aluminoâ€silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.
The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and aluminoâ€silicate spheres in the wellâ€studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces."
Rich Lee
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I didn't claim anything. But Harrit claimed that there was only one way to form iron microspheres and this proves him wrong.
Mister Jeffrey, I know you are excited to tell us everything you know about the Twin Towers but before you get off on other tangents you haven't explained to us in a scientific way how you came to your conclusions that the core columns fell due to heating, and how the columns would misalign.
You know that small but important stuff you would need to provide for your claims to have any validity like
- where the evidence was for the necessary 650 deg. C (1,202 deg. F) steel temperatures to cause the core columns to fail under their service load.
- where the lateral load necessary to translate the 12 story upper section and cause the columns to miss each other, the way you claim, would have come from.
We are waiting.
Harrit NEVER claimed that there was only one way to form iron microspheres. Nanothermite is one way. Additionally, there were chemical signatures in the correct relative proportions to point to nanothemite. Plus there were thermtic chips mixed in and not paint nor anything one would expect in a building - in fact they'd break the fire code. You make it all up as you go along?...or are just not following anything but your unzip theory? Did you REALLY read Harrit? I think not, or you are purposely misrepresenting his findings and those of the co-authors. There is more I could say against you inane statement above, but don't want to divert the thread...that's your 'specialty'.
Tony at 555
You know that small but important stuff you would need to provide for your claims to have any validity like
- where the evidence was for the necessary 650 deg. C (1,202 deg. F) steel temperatures to cause the core columns to fail under their service load.
- where the lateral load necessary to translate the 12 story upper section and cause the columns to miss each other, the way you claim, would have come from.
We are waiting.
Tony at 542
Phil, the building actually drops vertically a couple of stories, at a very small tilt of 1 degree or less, before the 8 degree tilt occurs. NIST is wrong about the 8 degrees occurring immediately and before any vertical movement. I don't think they looked at it close enough. The columns were never involved in the collapse based on acceleration measurements and column energy absorption capacity calculations. In other words, had the columns been involved the accelerations achieved would not have been possible. The small tilt does not misalign the columns in any significant way and inertia and the reality that buckling ductile columns don't just separate would cause the upper section to stay aligned in the absence of any significant lateral load on it, so there is no reason for misalignment. We find the collapse should have arrested after a one or even two story natural fall, as there would not have been enough kinetic energy to get through the columns.
Jeffrey at 530 indicates mechanical damage and heat weakening; later, column splice failure/column misalignment.
Lacking is any initiator of the observed multifloor failure and drop.
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Harrit NEVER claimed that there was only one way to form iron microspheres. Nanothermite is one way. Additionally, there were chemical signatures in the correct relative proportions to point to nanothemite. Plus there were thermtic chips mixed in and not paint nor anything one would expect in a building - in fact they'd break the fire code. You make it all up as you go along?...or are just not following anything but your unzip theory? Did you REALLY read Harrit? I think not, or you are purposely misrepresenting his findings and those of the co-authors. There is more I could say against you inane statement above, but don't want to divert the thread...that's your 'specialty'.
I never heard where Niels Harrit said there was only one way to form iron microspheres either. I think Mister Jeffrey owes a citation here to prove his claim.
Mister Jeffrey Orling, are you going to explain to us in a scientific way how you came to your conclusions that the core columns fell due to heating, and how the columns would misalign?
You know that small but important stuff you would need to provide for your claims to have any validity like
- where the evidence was for the necessary 650 deg. C (1,202 deg. F) steel temperatures to cause the core columns to fail under their service load.
- where the lateral load necessary to translate the 12 story upper section and cause the columns to miss each other, the way you claim, would have come from.
We are waiting.
If you can't explain it scientifically maybe you did one of your cartoon sketches to explain it to yourself and what you think to others. If so, can we see that (those) special cartoon(s)?
Tony,
Keep waiting.
I am not providing anything other than the links to work others have done... already provided.
Anyone who chooses to be willfully ignorant will never look and is incapable of seeing anything which undermines their beliefs.
Not my job to change anyone who does not want to change their thinking for any reason.
Good luck with your research...
re iron mico spheres and Harrit:
"Sunday, December 19, 2010
Dr. Rancourt
Thank you for your interest in our publication, and the effort you have made to formulate the questions as they appear in
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/...-911-cant.html
Our answers follow below. Your questions are highlighted in green. (on this post here they are italics)
Yours sincerely
Niels Harrit
...
ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS: Much is made of the fact that Fe-rich spheroids are present after reaction but there is no discussion of the grey-layer or of the origin of the Si-rich spheroids. Heating causes many things and there is an exothermic reaction so the conclusions about the presence of Fe-rich spheroids (which are reported to contain oxygen) as evidence for the thermite reaction is tenuous.
ANSWER: A scientific paper is a set of data and the best hypothesis rationalizing the observations. Fe-rich spheroids are observed after a thermite reaction. Fe-rich spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction."