NIST Answers the Critics... LOL

Thanks for the invite Gordon. I'll check out your site and see what I think. Take care.

Gordon,

I skimmed through your site. I couldn't find anything that I would say is false information or anything. As far as what I read of your analysis, I'd have to say it's pretty good. Keep up the good work...eventually we'll find out the truth.

Edit: Sorry to get off topic...back to NIST. You should post some of your responses to NIST here if you haven't already Gordon.

[edit on 9/5/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

So, all of the windows should have been blown out of the closer side?

How did this "funnel" the air out of a few windows in the middle of the opposing side?

Because there was a rather hughe hole in the building and the air was able to travel through the impacted floors much more freely than if they were untouched.

Originally posted by gordonross
The simple answer is none. Jet fuel does not detonate in an atmospheric fireball, it deflagrates and does not produce the characteristic blast wave that is produced by a high explosive. The situation would be different in an enclosed space, but the behaviour would depend on the geometry of the space and the distribution of the jet fuel. An engine combustion chamber is one such example and pulse detonation would give an extreme example of the behaviour.
Gordon.

The fuel indeed does produce a blast wave if it deflagrates in an atmospheric fireball. Not as strong as the same amount of explosives, but OTOH there was enough fuel to make rather large explosion and you don't need really large blast wave to influence the smoke and to add fresh air into the flames and expulse them a bit from the center - thus to produce that "puffs"...

A high explosive produces a supersonic blast wave and a subsonic compression wave. Jet fuel under normal atmospheric conditions outside certain specific circumstances cannot produce a blast wave and is thus limited to a compression wave. The compression wave itself as in all waves does not produce large lateral movements of the intervening material, air. [in this case]. The expansion of the gases caused by combustion would of course produce these lateral movements, behind the comprssion wave, and since the expanding gases are of a different colour than the air, you can see this. [Unlike a blast wave, which can only rarely be seen.] The cloud expands and moves generally upwards. This would not be the total extent of the movement of gases or air since this visible manifestation obviously has an invisible knock on effect. The effect in atmosphere drops proportionately with the cube of the distance from the event.

These small lateral movements are unlikely to provide a fresh charge of air to another distant fire without that being evidenced by large movements of the smoke emanating from and surrounding that distant fire. Since the lateral movements are all away from the original event then "puffs" would follow that same direction. "Puffs" emanating in different directions, out of two opposite walls for instance, cannot then be regarded as being dependent on any single event other than one happening between them. In this particular case that could either be an event within the storeys of the tower already on fire or a channeling of the effects of an event happening elsewhere. That other event is unlikely to be the aircraft impact because of the convoluted nature and distance of the channel through which it must travel.
The initiation of explosives, with their supersonic blast wave, either on the aircraft or on the visible storeys, may allow the effects to manifest through that channel but this is not backed by any evidence of the effects of a blast wave directly from the aircraft or the storeys. The initiation of explosives within the Towers basement levels is not affected by this stricture and is not ruled out as being the cause of the puffs.

Gordon Ross

This thread is typical of why I swore off posting here anymore and decided to just lurk to keep tabs on certain subjects I'm interested in (mainly cryptids and ancient civilisations), but the idea that 9/11 was a U.S. government "inside job"/Mossad plot and that the NIST is just a laughable whitewash demands comment.

The ATS motto is "Deny Ignorance", yet we at this website are subjected to the most unbelieveably ignorant statements such as "A 707 has more MASS than a 767"? A 707's gross takeoff weight is 160,000 pounds, whereas a 767 weighs in at 450,000 pounds. A basic calulation reveals that a 707 weighs 1/3 of a 767. Since when is weight at 1G (a constant on the planet Earth) unrelated to "MASS" (sic)? A 767's cruising airspeed is also relatively equal to a 707's (550 mph for a 707 as opposed to 530 mph for a 767), so inertia plays a role as well, in terms of the frontal area of an object of given mass impacting an object at a certain speed. Incorrect "facts" are cited to support idiotic beliefs

By profession I am a computer engineer, but I do have a basic background in physics (my Dad, now long since retired, was a physicist and I pursued it as a hobby for quite a while just because quarks and Black Holes and Cosmology in general held a certain fascination for me, and whenever I had a question he could either answer it or point me in the right direction). I am incredulous at some of the unbelievably bad science being proffered as evidence in support of some these idiotic theories.

In addition to the invalid claims cited above of the effects of various aircraft impacting buildings, there are those who claim that the laws of gravity prove that the towers were brought down by demolition rather than the stated "official" reasons. BS!! A time-lapse viewing in real time of the towers' collapse supports the official version. Engineering and physics laws support the official version.

The NIST study is entirely valid from my point of view. I don't expect a lot of ATS members to agree, but I do expect, rather, that there will be a lot of flaming directed towards me. So be it. A lot of the most active members these days seem to be youngsters who can't even spell and have the most rudimentary concepts of grammar, if any at all. If I can decipher your ignorant replies I will do my best to respond via U2U's.



[Mod Edit: Welcome to ATS, a place where personal attacks and insults are not tolerated and where, in preference, we try to focus the topic at hand. There are, as you are no doubt aware, plenty of other boards where you can indulge in flaming and insults to your hearts content. This is not one of them.

**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ** - Jak]



[edit on 7/9/06 by JAK]

RR-98, then can you provide the proof of the buckling that occured due to the sagging trusses? That's what most of us are trying to look for. In BOTH buildings. I've seen the manipulation in that twisted and contorted aluminum facades are "the buckled columns" and I've seen numerously that the proof of "buckling columns" being the columns giving out at the moment of collapse. But there just isn't enough proof to show both World Trade Centers 1 AND 2, having substantial buckling to cause the vertical support to just give out.

Do you see what it is that is trying to be got at? For the building to fall, you'd have to have the vertical supports to give out, so it CAN fall. And everyone else on here pro-official will say sufficient buckling did occur. But where is it then.. Notice it had to be pretty substantial considering the inner core wasn't completely obliterated by fires or the aircraft impact damage. (The matter of HOW the INNER CORE columns, all simultaneously gave out with the rest of the building is still a wonder considering they wouldn't just snap, yes that is a issue to look at in its entirety.)

In the majority, there is no bad science, just good questions.

YOU are certainly and well entitled to your opinion, but what do you have to offer in support of the official story if you claim the NIST is correct in their assertions.

Originally posted by RR98
(by Slap Nuts, who no doubt got his name by [LOL -- this is definitely going to be edited out]), there are those who claim that the laws of gravity prove that the towers were brought down by demolition rather than the stated "official" reasons. BS!! A time-lapse viewing in real time of the towers' collapse supports the official version. Engineering and physics laws support the official version.

To prove the above, you would have to prove how much resistance to the falling mass a much greater mass of the same material would have provided. To date, no one has done this. So you're making assumptions, and pushing them as facts. What's new?

Given, one mass (the ~10x greater one, for WTC1, for example) is static while one is in motion, but if you are familiar with even very basic physics, you would know that static masses also have energy (much energy in this case from the sheer amount of mass, all to be dissociated and etc. so rapidly) that would have to be overcome in a manner very violently and costly in terms of the kinetic energy that would have been available (not only for destroying floors into steel beams and dust, but also ejecting large sections of steel, producing much heat, etc.). This energy, of course, would not be infinite in supply. I don't think anyone is making the argument that the WTC Towers were massive free-energy machines as they fell.

Yet what accelerations (ie "decelerations") did we see of the alleged falling mass, indicative of such energy "expenditures"?

A quick observation of any of the three skyscraper collapses will show that there was no significant loss of velocity as any of them collapsed, even as experts agree on both sides that most of the mass fell over the sides as the buildings fell, thus not even accumulating "driving" mass (even though such mass would be totally dissociated and would make a poor "plunger" or "syringe" or what-have-you anyway). This is also while columns greatly thickened on the way down, obviously, in all three buildings, and again, most mass being lost over the sides, and what fell straight down was dissociated and thus the force would not have been focused.

A lot of the most active members these days seem to be youngsters who can't even spell and have the most rudimentary concepts of grammar, if any at all. If I can decipher your ignorant replies I will do my best to respond via U2U's.

You sound more like someone who has just stepped out of the Bad Astronomy forums, than someone who should be posting on ATS.

Nonetheless, take the above into consideration, if physics interests you, or if you actually care what happened that day, and aren't simply playing out cynical ego roles on internet forums.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

A lot of the most active members these days seem to be youngsters who can't even spell and have the most rudimentary concepts of grammar, if any at all. If I can decipher your ignorant replies I will do my best to respond via U2U's.

You sound more like someone who has just stepped out of the Bad Astronomy forums, than someone who should be posting on ATS.

Nonetheless, take the above into consideration, if physics interests you, or if you actually care what happened that day, and aren't simply playing out cynical ego roles on internet forums.

LOL at bautsters!

"if i can decipher your ignorant replies"....

oh, the irony.

RR98... your personal attacks are laughable AND...

YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG.

707: start mass: 148780kg, empty mass: 62370kg, cruise speed: 960kph

767: start mass: 136078kg, empty mass: 81230kg, cruise speed: 930kph

Source: FAA

IF the cargo holds, fuel tanks and seats are full then and ONLY then can a 767 have greater mass:

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

Sourec: FAA

Less MASS, Less SPEED = LESS MOMENTUM

Alos, the smaller size of the 707 would focus the energy more into the core causing more catstrophic damage so your logic and physics skills are fairly lacking on this subject.

Do you really think a 767 can lift off at almos a HALF MILLION LBS.? John Lear will correct you if you need further correction.

You just keep on posting unfounded "facts".

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

www.architectureweek.com...://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

Watch these videos and I think it may answer some of your questions about buckling, outward bending and the snapping of column memebers.

Originally posted by esdad71
www.architectureweek.com...://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

Watch these videos and I think it may answer some of your questions about buckling, outward bending and the snapping of column memebers.

Ahhh... the old NOVA argument... We are four years past the NOVA special dad.

Besides you are OFF TOPIC and attempting to derail a thread... this is against ATS rules.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

IF the cargo holds, fuel tanks and seats are full then and ONLY then can a 767 have greater mass:

What kind of airliner would be flying around with empty fuel tanks, cargo holds, and empty seats?

Thanks for proving to us that a 767 that is actually carrying passengers and fuel has more mass than a 707 carrying passengers and fuel.

As far as this...I have to agree with Left Behind. I hope you mispoken Slap because what you said really didn't make sense. Hope you can clarify this.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Thanks for proving to us that a 767 that is actually carrying passengers and fuel has more mass than a 707 carrying passengers and fuel.

You skipped the word FULL... it was 1/3 passengers and the BIGGEST load is CARGO which we can assume was also only 1/3 or less full making it < or = the mass of a 707... so thanks for reading the DETAILS.

Well apparently you missed the part where the 767 has a higher max take off weight.

You also missed that your own figues put the empty mass of a 767 as a higher number than that for the 707.

So it looks like empty or full the 767 is larger and has more mass.

707: start mass: 148780kg, empty mass: 62370kg, cruise speed: 960kph

767: start mass: 136078kg, empty mass: 81230kg, cruise speed: 930kph

81230kg is certainly more than 62370kg.


And do you have a link for these figures? Source:FAA is not really giveing a source. From what I can find the 767 always comes out as the larger plane.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.boeing.com...

www.boeing.com...



I also find it interesting that Boeing's own site disagree with your figures, and places the max takeoff weight at 450,000 lbs.

www.boeing.com...

Wikipedia places the 707 max takeoff weight as wither 333k or 257k depending on the model.

en.wikipedia.org...

No offense, I don't see the point to prove by this, either way, the buildings weren't completely structurally compromised by the air craft impacts, sure like 18-22% of the columns were given out on one side of the building, maybe less, and very few on the other sides because of debris, but there's still the issues about the fires.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well apparently you missed the part where the 767 has a higher max take off weight.

You also missed that your own figues put the empty mass of a 767 as a higher number than that for the 707.

So it looks like empty or full the 767 is larger and has more mass.

So, to sum up your whole argument... a 707 and a 767 are essenially the same weight but a 707 is smaller so the KE would be more focused on the core and more able to casue concentrated damage?

The only point I am trying to make is that a 707 and a 767 a very similar in mass depending on how loaded they are... since we know that the 767s were at 1/3 passenger cap. and lacking the normal luggage load, it is safe to assume the masses are about the same and that claiming the 767 would cause far more damage is just official line towers grasping at straws.

About equal mass (707, 767) spread across a larger area (767) would cause less core damage as the larger impact area of the 767 would arrest more of the foreward momentum than the smaller impact area into the outter lattice of a 707.