See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
Source:
BBC
URL Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Published: Sep 11, 2007
Author: staff
Post Date: 2010-07-17 17:31:29 by buckeroo
Ping List: *4um PSY-OP Club* Subscribe to *4um PSY-OP Club*
Keywords: None
Views: 19138
Comments: 1209
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition". The study suggests a different explanation for how the towers fell. Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York. After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001. This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking"). Resistance to collapse Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures. Man stands amid rubble of the World Trade Center, AFP/Getty Once the collapse began, it was destined to be "rapid and total" In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts. "The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website. Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse. His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. 'Fair assumption' The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell". "One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen. The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, AP Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation" He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings. The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronised rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center. This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers. Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble. Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse. Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design.
[Thread Locked] Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 440.
#237. To: buckeroo (#0)
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. Actually a free fall from the 110th floor would have taken 9.22 seconds. Wow, the towers fell FASTER than free falling objects, like being sucked into a huge vacuum cleaner. Amazing.
Show me your calculation and/or source material.
Oh man, are you REALLY that stupid? Besides it being stated in virtually every report that exists in terms of free fall comparisons, here's the basic physics, which you apparently never learned in school. You can look up the formula, it's t = SQRT(2d/g) t = time, d = distance, g = acceleration due to gravity (32.2 feet per second/second) The roof heights of the WTC towers were 1368 ft for WTC1, 1362 feet for WTC2. Acceleration due to gravity is (32.17 feet per second)/second For WTC1; t = SQRT(2*1368/32.17) = 9.222 seconds For WTC2; t = SQRT(2*1362/32.17) = 9.202 seconds So there you go buck, try looking things up yourself next time before you make a fool of yourself.
Why do you think that your height measurement for the "top" of each of the WTC towers is correct? The towers were hit on the 96th and 81st floors, this means that "free fall" time values were 8.61 and 7.91 seconds respectively because this is the location of initial forces (de plane! de plane!) that buckled the upper floors. So, you are incorrect by throwing your silly brick off the 110th floor... for a publick demonstration of your astounding assumptions to thwart otherwise serious study and investigation into and about a tragic issue. This notion of "free fall" has always been used by the TWOOFERS and it is an incorrect assumption for the top of either of the building for the calculation; it is utter nonsense.
Hahahahhaa. More back pedaling after they themselves use 9.22 seconds as evidenced on Rosie's video clip. Where she's obviously parroting something she doesn't understand the least from a CT website.
Rosie is obviously brighter than you. You don't judge collapse time for only PART of the building collapsing, you INCLUDE the ENTIRE building from the very top. Do they give you stupid pills on your job?
You're the people bantering around the "9.22 seconds," "physical impossibility" phrases. You've had over 8 years and still can't come up with coherent, supportable, verifiable versions of events. Take another few years to get your stories straight. It's not like anybody will be holding their breaths.
Yep, the building SHOULD NOT HAVE collapsed as if it were falling through a vacuum, yet buck's expert "calculated" precisely that. Do you and he subscribe to "Junk Science Monthly"? Or do you just make this shit up as you go?
There is a very good reason why real world controlled demolition uses so much time, energy, and materials to create conditions getting as close to free fall speeds as possible. And the consequence of this reason is, if the collapse does not approach free fall speeds, it wasn't done by professional controlled demolition experts. The reason is, it is known with complete certainty that the force of gravity, if unobstructed by other forces, will pull the building straight down into its own footprint. Where it can be neatly disposed of without damage to anything else not intended to be destroyed. When the structure is not sufficiently prepared by getting rid of any and all remaining obstacles in the way of straight down vertical collapse, there are additional uncertainties introduced of timing, and rerouting gravitational forces in lines other than straight up and down. So professional demolitions people take extra time to make sure the fall will be as close to vertical free fall speeds as possible to avoid introducing other variables which may cause unpredicable unmanageable results. If a building doesn't fall at close to free fall speeds, its fall has not been set up by controlled demolition. Fifeeen seconds vs. nine seconds for a collapse is not even close to free fall speeds. The controlled demolition theory is debunked by actual and observed free fall speeds indicating lack of thorough setup for a building collapse many times larger than the largest recorded CD.
Wrong. All the demolition has to do is START the collapse, and with strategically placed charges and computer aided timing, the collapse can take however long they want it to in terms of structural collapse below the initial point of failure. Thing is, it collapsed WAY too fast for gravity to have done it alone, where a falling body meeting resistance slows down, and the resistance may eventually give way, but it takes some finite amount of time for that to happen. You're saying it took 6 seconds to smash and break EVERY iota of resistance, since the 9 seconds of falling through a vacuum doesn't correlate with the time it took to overcome the resistance.
But a demolition did not start the collapses. The jet crashes did.
Er, no buckie. The buildings did NOT start to fall down when they were hit. They did NOT start to fall till the precise time they collapsed.
So there was no debris scattered around immediately after the impacts? Not much time... it was amazing they stood for so long ... but it took time for the central structure to lose stress capability that caused the later crush down phase.
Not amazing at all, what's amazing is that they fell at all, never mind disintegrate into dust while coming down close to free fall speeds.
ROTFL .... no building is designed to withstand that kind of impact.
So what IS your excuse for WT7? Also the architect for those buildings claims they were indeed made to endure the impact of a 747. Also, this architect calls BS on much of the story......he has far more experience in this field than you do Buck.
Also the architect for those buildings claims they were indeed made to endure the impact of a 747. Also, this architect calls BS on much of the story......he has far more experience in this field than you do Buck. Buck just keeps on repeating those old discredited canards. I wonder why.
Because that is all he has. The Pop Mechanics piece has been shredded and proven false. The NOVA piece has been shredded and proven false. The FEMA Report has been shredded and proven false. The NIST Report has been shown evasive and incomplete including speculation along side fact. And it provides NO analysis as to why the buildings collapsed in the manner they did they just wave it off with a shrug saying "it was inevitable". Of course the report does not address why it was inevitable or the mechanism by which it worked. They don't even use Eager's "Pancakes". Oh, Professor Eager is virtually the only high profile academic who still supports the Official Conspiracy Theory™ but he will not submit to interviewing nor does he provide any documentation, calculations, etc., which support the Official Conspiracy Theory™. About the only thing left to the defender of 911 Lies is to repeat the same objections, and Strawman Arguments over and over ad nauseam. They can produce nothing definitive proving the Official Conspiracy Theory™.
Eager's salary may depend on him not understanding that he is lying. Or at least to not admit it.
Oh, Professor Eager is virtually the only high profile academic who still supports the Official Conspiracy Theory™ but he will not submit to interviewing nor does he provide any documentation, calculations, etc., which support the Official Conspiracy Theory™. Eager's salary may depend on him not understanding that he is lying. Or at least to not admit it. BullShit. You people have already been challenged to prove any one of Eagar's 14 Patents or 230 Papers Peer Reviewed false, and none of you you has even attempted to do so, let alone find anything wrong with any of his achievements. Yet like the total moral coward you are, you anonymously attack Eagar as a liar without supplying any proof of your own.
Eager's salary may depend on him not understanding that he is lying. Or at least to not admit it. BullShit. You people have already been challenged to prove any one of Eagar's 14 Patents or 230 Papers Peer Reviewed false, and none of you you has even attempted to do so, let alone find anything wrong with any of his achievements. Yet like the total moral coward you are, you anonymously attack Eagar as a liar without supplying any proof of your own. I could give a rat's behind how many patents or papers Eager has or has published. That is an appeal to authority which is one of the logical fallacies. It has no evidenciary weight. All it establishes is that yes, Eager has patented and published. It proves nothing in regard to his unsubstantiated opinion. It occurred to me after I posted this originally that your post qualifies for another award: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit. Further I said there are no other academics of similar stature supporting him and he will not take interviews except from friendly sources. So you can whine all you want. The comment stands substantiated. Next.
That is an appeal to authority which is one of the logical fallacies. It has no evidenciary weight Bull$hit again. You lie as easily as you breathe. The only false argument being made is your own ad hominem Eagar has made specific physics and engineering based statements regarding the WTC collapses. When you say he's lying without offering any proof, you're saying you know more about physics and engineering than he does. Not only are you unable to rebut any of Eagar's physics and engineering statements about the WTC collapses, you're unable to rebut any of his entire body of published and patented work produced throughout his decades-long career. On one hand we have a physics and engineering professional who is known worldwide for his demonstrated accomplishments. On the other we have an anonymous internet k00kster, hiding under a cyber rock, calling the professional a liar, but completely unable to rebut either his statements on the subject at hand, or any other of the voluminous work the professional has done over decades. You're an anonymous coward, a liar, and a loser.
That is an appeal to authority which is one of the logical fallacies. It has no evidenciary weight Bull$hit again. You lie as easily as you breathe. The only false argument being made is your own ad hominem Eagar has made specific physics and engineering based statements regarding the WTC collapses. When you say he's lying without offering any proof, you're saying you know more about physics and engineering than he does. Not only are you unable to rebut any of Eagar's physics and engineering statements about the WTC collapses, you're unable to rebut any of his entire body of published and patented work produced throughout his decades-long career. On one hand we have a physics and engineering professional who is known worldwide for his demonstrated accomplishments. On the other we have an anonymous internet k00kster, hiding under a cyber rock, calling the professional a liar, but completely unable to rebut either his statements on the subject at hand, or any other of the voluminous work the professional has done over decades. You're an anonymous coward, a liar, and a loser. Not at all. My attack was not against the person i.e., I did not make the point as resting solely on my dislike of Eagar. My main points were: 1. There are no other academics of comparable stature that are supporting him in his defense of the Official Conspiracy Theory™, and neither does he substantiate his opinion in facts, figures, and known Physical Laws. In fact Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth boasts somewhere in the vicinity of 1,200 members who do not believe Dr. Eagar's unsupported pronouncements. Which I will add does not prove any of the issues we have discussed one way or the other. However, their website carries a substantial body of information which flies direct in the face of Eagar's pronouncements. Dr. Eagar, like NIST, dictates his opinion on authority not fact. Here's a letter and comment by Christopher Bollyn: Date: April 21, 2006 Provo, Utah To: Thomas W. Eagar tweagar@MIT.EDU Department of Materials Science and Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology From: Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press Re: Professor Steven E. Jones Paper on Molten Metal at World Trade Center "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html Dear Professor Eagar, I was quite shocked when you refused to read the scientific paper by Professor Steven E. Jones of BYU dealing with the unanswered questions about the large amounts of molten metal that were seen cascading from the 81st floor of South Tower of the World Trade Center immediately before it began to collapse. I was equally amazed when you said that there was no evidence of molten metal flowing from the 81st floor of the South Tower prior to the collapse and that this is some sort of hearsay. And I was most disappointed when you suddenly hung up the phone on me. Why are you unwilling to discuss the evidence of molten metal at the World Trade Center - before and after the "collapses?" It certainly appears that you were unable to answer my questions and decided to run away. What do you call these attached photos showing molten metal cascading from the South Tower? Fakes? (Note that Prof. Jones proves that this is not aluminum as some of the reports suggest. Molten aluminum is silver-gray in daylight.) Why do you refuse to review the paper by Prof. Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University about the molten metal found at the World Trade Center, before and after the collapses? Professor Jones' webpage is here: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/ His paper on the molten metal is here: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html His research is the natural scientific investigation and follow-up of the unanswered questions, which are raised by the evidence and presented in the FEMA and NIST studies, serious scientific problems which these agencies clearly said required further study. What kind of scientist are you anyway? Rather than running from the research of Professor Jones, you should welcome and embrace such efforts to answer the questions of 9-11. As Jones says, "The data stands on its own." What is this seriously-flawed "official version" of 9-11, which you seem to support, a religious myth that cannot be challenged? Signed, Christopher Bollyn American Free Press Washington, D.C. Photo: This photo from the NE corner of the South Tower shows a cascade of molten metal flowing from the 80th or 81st floor immediately prior to the collapse of the building. Professor Eagar has written about the fires at the World Trade Center, (see - http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) in which he states: "However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best. "Some reports," Eagar wrote, "suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot." Well, Mr. Eagar, what are we seeing here? End of Article -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. I refuted and showed how your appeal to authority was logically false. P.S.: "Mr. Good bar says: Go Fuck Yourself. Do it today."
Well, Mr. Eagar, what are we seeing here? End of Article We are seeing melted aluminum, which becomes liquid around 500 Degrees Centigrade. Aluminum furthermore has distinct color ranges associated with distinct temperature ranges. We are not seeing burning aluminum, which combusts at thousands of degrees Centigrade, or melted steel which also requires substantially over a thousand degrees Centigrade. Christopher Bollyn in his zeal to try to one up Dr. Eagar, fails to distinguish between a melting substance and a burning one. There is nothing inconsistent in Eagar's account with the photos of melted metal coming around the 81st floors. Bollyn as usual for CT'ers is an ignorant rube trying to score rhetorical points instead of researching facts.
There absolutely is - the color is wrong for aluminum and right for steel. Molten aluminum is silver not red orange. And you and Eagar can pound the table all day long and it does not change that FACT. It is dishonest to say so and a Professor of "Materials Science" knows better. For a detailed analysis read: www.journalof911studies.c...ngsCompletelyCollapse.pdf While I cannot cite conclusive evidence - thermite/thermate melts steel. Nanothermites painted over a section of steel would be perfectly capable of turning it into a molten state. Hydrocarbon fires do not generate sufficient heat to melt steel. Neither do office fires which are mostly Class Alpha - wood and paper (although synthetic carpet would be made from petrochemicals and thus would be Class Bravo). Regardless the two types of fuel posited are jet fuel and wood/paper do not get hot enough to melt either. Particularly in an oxygen starved fire as evidenced by the heavy black soot.
Debunking Molten Steel Myth Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black. Jones writes: "This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray" I think at a cooler temperature, he's right. What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911". The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me.. As I said, the evidence points to it being aluminum. Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk. Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?" First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow. I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link] Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials." If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F. Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange? The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum. The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum. The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8 Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible. Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up. The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them. THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron. Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling. I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely. Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color. Stephen D. Chastain The color means nothing. The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail
Stephen D. Chastain is a nobody who is attempting to sell his wares............lol. Here he is denying the light specttrum that far greater minds have held firm to for centuries. Yeah, Stephen D. Chastain is YOUR man.........hahahahahahahahaha
#442. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#440)
Light spectra do not have same properties for ad hoc mixtures of various substances as they do for pure elements. The WTC crash sites were places where many different kinds of substances were mixed together and burned. They cannot be expected to conform to rules and spectra charts made for individual highly purified elements.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHis calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
#246. To: FormerLurker (#237)
Actually a free fall from the 110th floor would have taken 9.22 seconds.
#247. To: buckeroo (#246)
Show me your calculation and/or source material.
#249. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#247)
#252. To: buckeroo (#249)
This notion of "free fall" has always been used by the TWOOFERS and it is an incorrect assumption for the top of either of the building for the calculation; it is utter nonsense.
#256. To: AGAviator (#252)
More back pedaling after they themselves use 9.22 seconds as evidenced on Rosie's video clip.
#260. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#256)
You don't judge collapse time for only PART of the building collapsing, you INCLUDE the ENTIRE building from the very top.
#263. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#260)
You're the people bantering around the "9.22 seconds," "physical impossibility" phrases.
#309. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#263)
(Edited)
Yep, the building SHOULD NOT HAVE collapsed as if it were falling through a vacuum, yet buck's expert "calculated" precisely that.
#316. To: AGAviator (#309)
If a building doesn't fall at close to free fall speeds, its fall has not been set up by controlled demolition. Fifeeen seconds vs. nine seconds for a collapse is not even close to free fall speeds. The controlled demolition theory is debunked by actual and observed free fall speeds indicating lack of thorough setup for a building collapse many times larger than the largest recorded CD.
#318. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#316)
All the demolition has to do is START the collapse
#321. To: buckeroo (#318)
But a demolition did not start the collapses. The jet crashes did.
#323. To: FormerLurker (#321)
The buildings did NOT start to fall down when they were hit.
They did NOT start to fall till the precise time they collapsed.
#328. To: buckeroo (#323)
Not much time... it was amazing they stood for so long ... but it took time for the central structure to lose stress capability that caused the later crush down phase.
#331. To: FormerLurker (#328)
what's amazing is that they fell at all
#337. To: buckeroo (#331)
no building is designed to withstand that kind of impact.
#343. To: abraxas (#337)
So what IS your excuse for WT7?
#354. To: James Deffenbach, abraxas, FormerLurker, Buckmonster Fullofit, buckeroo, all (#343)
Buck just keeps on repeating those old discredited canards. I wonder why.
#357. To: Original_Intent (#354)
Oh, Professor Eager is virtually the only high profile academic who still supports the Official Conspiracy Theory™ but he will not submit to interviewing nor does he provide any documentation, calculations, etc., which support the Official Conspiracy Theory™.
#379. To: James Deffenbach, Orginal_Indent, buckeroo, turtle (#357)
(Edited)
#392. To: AGAviator (#379)
(Edited)
Oh, Professor Eager is virtually the only high profile academic who still supports the Official Conspiracy Theory™ but he will not submit to interviewing nor does he provide any documentation, calculations, etc., which support the Official Conspiracy Theory™.
#405. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#392)
I could give a rat's behind how many patents or papers Eager has or has published.
#416. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, IRTorqued, Kamala, HOUNDDAWG, farmfriend, christine, all (#405)
I could give a rat's behind how many patents or papers Eager has or has published.
#422. To: Original_Indent, buckeroo, turtle (#416)
(Edited)
"Some reports," Eagar wrote, "suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot."
#432. To: AGAviator, wudidiz, FormerLurker, IRTorqued, Critter, abraxas, all (#422)
Christopher Bollyn in his zeal to try to one up Dr. Eagar, fails to distinguish between a melting substance and a burning one. There is nothing inconsistent in Eagar's account with the photos of melted metal coming around the 81st floors.
#434. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#432)
(Edited)
One of the pieces of evidence Jones points to is a snapshot of the flow falling down the side the building. This pyrotechnic show seems ominous, that is until you look at it closely...
from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.
#440. To: AGAviator (#434)
Stephen D. Chastain The color means nothing. The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence.
Replies to Comment # 440. Here he is denying the light specttrum that far greater minds have held firm to for centuries.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 440.