Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

[Peter Lemkin]

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'.

[Phil Dragoo]

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.

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

[Tony Szamboti]

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)?

[Jeffrey Orling]

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."

[Tony Szamboti]

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...

But Mister Jeffrey, you can't expect us to just take your word that the core columns fell due to heating and that the columns would have missed each other without some form of scientific rationale for how you came to your conclusions on these matters. The information doesn't need to be your own.

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."

Mister Jeffrey, it doesn't look like Dr. Harrit said there was only one way to form iron microspheres. He actually said "they have never been observed except in a thermite reaction". There is a difference. However, if Dave Thomas did find one iron microsphere in his test (and I didn't see more than one shown in the video) then they have been observed in other ways. This does not explain the finding of iron microspheres in abundance in the WTC dust along with nano-thermite, which actually forms iron microspheres when ignited.

An analogy here would be of a man found with bird shot pellets all throughout his body and a shotgun found nearby and Dave Thomas saying well bird shot pellets are the same size as those from a BB-gun. Does it even make any sense that the man was actually shot with a BB-gun vs. a shotgun with Birdshot?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Tony at 555

Lacking is any initiator of the observed multifloor failure and drop.

The drop and movement were the result of multiple forces and factors... beginning with the mechanical destruction of the columns by the plane impact, the fires which started from the air line fuel, and electrical shorts, office contents inlcuding plastic and other combustible substances, failure of the fire protection. Connections were the weak links in the steel frame and failed before any steel they connected would.

No one knows the precise sequence of failures and how the frames loads were redistributed and eventually overwhelmed what was left of the structure (axial load paths). When axial load strength dropped below service loads the top section descended and the facade dropped, twisted, translated and the connections broke and some sections still connected cuckled... as in the last remaining connected columns.

This is what the observations indicate. Ignore at your own peril.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony at 555

Lacking is any initiator of the observed multifloor failure and drop.

The drop and movement were the result of multiple forces and factors... beginning with the mechanical destruction of the columns by the plane impact, the fires which started from the air line fuel, and electrical shorts, office contents inlcuding plastic and other combustible substances, failure of the fire protection. Connections were the weak links in the steel frame and failed before any steel they connected would.

No one knows the precise sequence of failures and how the frames loads were redistributed and eventually overwhelmed what was left of the structure (axial load paths). When axial load strength dropped below service loads the top section descended and the facade dropped, twisted, translated and the connections broke and some sections still connected cuckled... as in the last remaining connected columns.

This is what the observations indicate. Ignore at your own peril.

Mister Jeffrey, this is not a scientific explanation. Can you please provide the following

- where the evidence is for the necessary 650 deg. C (1,202 deg. F) steel temperatures to cause the core column axial load strength to fall 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.

so we can see how you came to your conclusions. Again, they don't need to be your own and can even be estimates of some sort. Isn't it important to you that you are seen as being a rational person who would base their thinking on science?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Can you please provide the following

- where the evidence is for the necessary 650 deg. C (1,202 deg. F) steel temperatures to cause the core column axial load strength to fall 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.

so we can see how you came to your conclusions. Again, they don't need to be your own and can even be estimates of some sort. Isn't it important to you that you are seen as being a rational person who would base their thinking on science?

Nope... find it for yourself.

I have no problem with my reputation. I don't hold myself out to be an expert on what happened at on 9/11. I don't publish papers and speak to conferences as if I know what I am talking about. That's what YOU do.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. That's what YOU do.

I simply present my conception based on what I read and see. I am an armchair observer. I make not claim to be anything but. You claim to be an expert and know what happened (you don't and you aren't an expert).

I am not online to jump to your demands. You can learn from other sources as I have done. You don't want to. Not my problem. I am not here to educate you.

I am a rational person. It is you who are not and pretend to be and attempt to apparently convince others that you are a serious person. You don't give me that impression. It hasn't worked.