• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debate! What debate?

Thanks for the introduction, Frank. Wish it had come first. We don't exactly have a shortage here of conspiracists playing unnecessary games.

You're correct that I am satisfied with NIST's explanation of the cause of the collapses. Their methods and conclusions make sense to me and account for the observed events. I'm perfectly open to new information that's well-researched. It's uninformed speculation and unfounded accusations that I dislike.

–Mark
 
I believe Dr. Greening is being cautious, because he is now criticized by both sides for simply exploring possibilities, though the scientific method as best he can with his knowledge and his limited resources.


To be fair, the majority of the critisism he's recieved on this thread has been due to his unneccessarily aggressive approach, right from the start. That may have been part of his act, to see if he could get us riled up, but note that, now he's settled into a more reasonable tone of voice, others are having a more reasonable discussion with him.

I don't think anyone here will complain about others "exploring possibilities", what bothers us is when those "explorations" are completely divorced from any notion of reality, and when such problems are hand-waved away, as Ace&Co. have done with the Giant Beam of Dustification hypothesis.

Dr. Greening's hypothesis, while definitely controversial, has the benefit of pointing out some means by which is could actually be carried out, and some means by which it could be falsified. These two areas are where every other 9/11 alternate hypothesis fails utterly.


Nist did not have unlimited funding or unlimited time, or a god like ability to view every aspect of the collapses, it was simply good people doing a hard job with what they had. There are always unanswered questions, loose ends, but nothing that needs to be included in loose change final cut.
Curiosity and honnest research, sometimes mean that someone must look at other aspects as possibilities as longs as they are possible in the known reality of the known universe and do not involve invisible elves with invisible explosives.


In my mind, the real question is if Dr. Greening (or anyone else) has found any information that would point to the fundamental conclusions of NIST being wrong. That is, would the collapse due to impact and fire, that continues to the ground under the influence of gravity, not be possible at all, without some additional contributing factors (explosives, thermite, space beams, angry steel-eating beavers, whatever)?

Or, does he simply point out factors that, while NIST may have missed or under examined, would still point to a "natural" collapse senario? Is he refining NIST, or throwing it out entirely?

I think everyone here would accept refinements to NIST without too much trouble. Throwing it out entirely would take a bit more work and evidence, which I think is only proper.
 
Last edited:
I wonder, when people such as Dr Greening consider the mechanism for collapse, do they imagine it to be a 'clean' event, i.e the model of the tower they are using assumes that there is no wreckage already overloading floors below the impact zone and that the rotation of the upper portion of the structure has no effect on the lower portion during the rotation due to say the internal partitioning of the floors?

Whilst I think Dr Greening has provided a useful academic model for the collapse initiation, it does concern me that they chaotic nature of it is seldom taken into account.

We know that the floor trusses played an important role in these buildings, not just as support for the floors themselves but as restraint for the columns.

We also know that the sag of the trusses put a tremendous strain on the columns.

But we can only really speculate as to the true extent of internal damage at the impact zone and how this damage and the accumulation of debris would effect the 'clean' models being presented.

My point would be that if you were to allow a tolerance within the model for the possible damage caused by falling debris and aircraft debris affecting the floors and the floor trusses, then that tolerance would be in favour of the progressive collapse of the tower due to impact damage and fire.

Just my $560 worth.:D
 
Disbelief:

I think the collapse of the Twin Towers was extremely complex. That's why NIST took so long to come up with its collapse model. Trouble is the model itself gets so complex you start to lose any sense of cause and effect. It's a bit like these climate change models..... you can get a believable answer that may be completely wrong. So, I guess I am complaining about NIST's approach and failure to consider the collapse itself. I know that wasn't part of its mandate, etc, etc, but I find it the most interesting part! I hope to see something more convincing one day, but I guess as a Doubting Thomas, seeking direct gnosis, I may have to wait until I stand before my Maker and ask him!

David James:

I have written to NIST and received no reply. I have also contacted Bazant and received some very positive feedback from him and one of his associates.
 
Confessions of a 9/11 Agnostic

My name is Frank Greening/Neu-Fonze/Apollo20. I have observed a lot of mixed reaction to my recent contributions to PhysOrg and JREF forums. I am therefore posting the following material to explain who I am and where I’m coming from…..

The sustained high temperatures of the rubble pile proved to be more problematic. The NIST Report indicates that about 100 tonnes of burning material and smoldering “embers”, at 500 - 700° C, fell into the rubble pile when the Twin Towers collapsed. Propagation of smoldering combustion within the rubble pile was sustained by the indigenous supply of live load “fuel”- consisting of office furniture, paper, textiles and plastic materials - and oxygen. Setting aside the issue of oxygen availability, let us consider how long the available fuel could last. The heat flux of a smoldering fire is typically ~ 8 kW/m2 from which we may calculate the average fuel consumption rate within the rubble pile. NIST estimate that there was initially about 50,000 kg of combustible material on each floor of WTC 1 & 2. If we assume that material from about 5 floors was consumed before the Towers collapsed, about 5,250,000 kg of “fuel” was initially available within the rubble from each Tower. It is a simple matter to show that this fuel would be able to sustain the rubble pile fires for no more than about 30 days. However, it was not until December 19th 2001, or 100 days after 9/11, that the Governor of New York, George Pataki, officially declared the WTC fires to be totally extinguished. We are left wondering what “stoked” the rubble pile fires beyond the expected 30 days.

Thus, by the start of 2007, I still had plenty of questions about the official version of the collapse of the Twin Towers. And this is essentially where I stand today. Unlike the self-assured posters on PhysOrg and JREF who claim to KNOW what happened to the Twin Towers, I remain a 9/11 agnostic.

Hi Dr. Greening, thank you for your introduction. This is much more useful.

As a fellow scientist, I also am open to alternate explanations, provided they are "better." I have read the NIST report and found it to be plausible, certainly plausible enough to be the leading theory at this point. That does not mean I believe it to be the best of all possible theories, only the best we've seen so far. There is no "self assurance" here. I also believe I speak for many JREF posters in this regard.

I would be interested to see more detail in the assertions you made above, starting with what I find to be the simplest -- the sustained high temperature of the pile.

How did you calculate a burnout time of 30 days? It seems to me that such a calculation would be highly sensitive to errors in estimated heat loss, in turn governed by convection and insulation. Since the Pile was mostly contained in a six-story hole rather than simply heaped on the surface, I'm not sure comparison to a standard smouldering fire is sufficiently accurate.

Also, if you are correct that the fire should have lasted 30 days, but instead lasted over 100, this implies that over two thirds of the combustion energy is unexpected. The expected combustion energy totals over 5.9 x 1013 Joules. Therefore, if your estimate is correct, this implies that roughly 1.2 x 1014 Joules are unaccounted for -- roughly 28.7 kilotons of TNT equivalent.

That's an awful lot of unexpected energy. Assuming it was in the form of ammonium perchlorate, it would dwarf the PEPCON disaster (see also video). It's almost enough to make one re-evaluate Ace Baker's hypotheses, in fact.

I think we need to sharpen up our estimates before making any such conclusion. So, would you like to share?
 
Not sure how you came up with your calculations. However I did notice part of your problem was a lack of understanding regarding materical retaining its heat. I first saw your misunderstanding regarding the concrete being turned over.

While the blaze is starved for oxygen, the scalding steel buried
below ground will retain its heat until enough air reaches it or
water douses it.

Also I would suggest talking more to Thomas A. Cahill regarding the burning fuel.

He stated that "The, fuel oil from the WTC’s generators seeped into the ground, ignited and slowly consumed the debris stacked on top of it. As the piles were peeled open, oxygen stoked the underground fire, which burned for weeks."
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid:65238

I have many links regarding the fires. PM me if your intertested.

Im also going to add this link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/nyregion/19FIRE.html

Jose Maldonado has all the basic tools: a ladder truck to lift him up and out toward the fire; a pumper to ensure nearly 800 gallons a minute is poured onto it; and his respirator, boots and other protective gear to guard against the roiling waves of heat and toxic smoke.

But as dawn turns into day and day into night, it is hard to tell if the 12 hours of labor put in by Mr. Maldonado, a barrel-chested firefighter from the Bronx, has made even a bit of difference.

On detail at the World Trade Center site, he is helping fight no ordinary blaze. His assignment is to somehow put out what firefighting experts are calling the longest commercial building fire in United States history.

As in a stubborn coal mine fire, the combustion taking place deep below the surface is in many places not a fire at all. Instead, oxygen is charring the surfaces of buried fuels in a slow burn more akin to what is seen in the glowing coals of a raked-over campfire. But the scale of the trade center burning is vast, with thousands of plastic computers, acres of flammable carpet, tons of office furniture and steel and reservoirs of hydraulic oil and other fuels piled upon one another.

Steel beams pulled from the debris at times are so hot they are cherry red. Benzene, propylene, styrene and other chemicals generated by the combustion of computers, office products and fuels drift through the air. And at times, plumes of this smoke are still carried across Lower Manhattan, into City Hall, down to Wall Street, and up through TriBeCa, a relentless reminder of that morning on Sept. 11.

"You keep hitting it again and again with water," Mr. Maldonado said, his respirator momentarily pulled from his face, as he stood in the scorched landscape that once was the World Trade Center plaza. "But the fire won't give up. It is just a constant fight."

Progress has been made, to be sure.

Thermal aerial photographs and videotape shot in the days just after the attack show a nearly constant field of heat across large swaths of the 16-acre site. An aerial video shot late last week showed an underground blaze now confined largely to where the two towers once stood.

Deputy Fire Chief Charles R. Blaich said that even though almost no smoke could be seen coming up from the north tower site, the video showed that the smoldering still continued underground, as it did at the south tower, where smoke and steam was obvious.

"We are headed in the right direction," Chief Blaich said, as he watched the video at the World Trade Center incident command center on Duane Street. "But there still seems to be a significant amount of work to accomplish."

The trade center fire suppression effort is a decidedly low-tech affair.

A variety of creative approaches have been considered, including drilling holes deep into the debris piles so that foam could be pumped directly onto the fire, or somehow injecting nitrogen into the piles to try to extinguish the fire by forcing out the oxygen.

But with the exception of a week in early October, when 3,000 gallons of a special chemical were added to the water being pumped onto the site, it has largely been just firefighters with hoses and city water.

Nearly 110 firefighters and rescue workers are at the scene at all times, but most of them act as spotters, watching as the demolition effort continues and trying to find human remains. The actual fire suppression team has 10 firefighters and officers on each 12-hour shift who are given two basic assignments: some work with hand lines; and others, like Mr. Maldonado, 35, are lifted in ladder trucks, and then use high pressure hoses to shoot the water down.

"It is tedious work, hour after hour operating a line," said Tom Ferreri, 32, a fireighter from Brooklyn who has worn his respirator so much that a scar has formed at the top of his nose. "It is not like any other fire I have ever faced."

But there is no lack of determination and few complaints from the firefighters, who consider it an honor to be at ground zero, laboring to put out a fire at a site where 343 firefighters and more than 2,500 others died.

"Unfortunately, we aren't here saving people or getting people out of a fire," Mr. Ferreri said. "But we are here to get our brothers out, trying to bring closure for families."

Each day's firefighting targets are largely dictated by how the demolition work is going. Dozens of giant backhoes, grapplers and other earth- moving equipment move constantly across the site, resembling a pack of dinosaurs voraciously feeding in some primordial swamp. As they grab at the debris, they open up air vents that feed the underground fire.

Most of the time, the hoses are trained on spots where the firefighters can see smoke, which changes from white to gray, and sometimes to black, depending on how close and intense the underground blaze is. Greenish-yellow smoke rises from where the ironworkers cut apart steel beams. And at times, without any notice, bright flames erupt and suddenly surround the earth-moving equipment as workers shift debris and oxygen flows to meet combustible materials.

These are the toughest moments for the firefighters. The giant mounds of debris in some spots and the deep pits elsewhere prevent firefighters from quickly repositioning their ladder trucks and hoses. So a special all-terrain vehicle designed to fight brush fires is quickly dispatched, carrying its own small supply of water to douse the flames.

The chiefs in charge often stand on the rooftop of a small fire station on Liberty Street, just at the edge of ground zero, a station that miraculously was not damaged as the towers collapsed. With binoculars, they survey the scene, calling out orders to the suppression teams below.

"We need to make sure we keep that ladder truck right there," one of the fire chiefs squawked into his radio Thursday morning, as he realized that all his other suppression firefighters had been temporarily moved off the site as demolition crews prepared to tear down a section of what remained of the north tower. "Keep him right there."

It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.

Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said.

The longest-burning fire on earth, in southeastern Australia, is thought to have been started by a lightning strike 2,000 years ago and is slowly eating away at a buried coal deposit. In Centralia, Pa., a fire that began in a landfill in 1962 spread to old coal mines and has been burning ever since.

"When you have a huge mass of materials deeply buried like this, it's sort of analogous to the Centralia mine fire," said Dr. Thomas J. Ohlemiller, a chemical engineer and fire expert at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md. "Very little heat is lost, so the reaction can keep going at relatively low temperatures, provided you have a weak supply of oxygen coming through the debris."

In September, several government and private experts offered various proposals to help curb the fire, including the use of foams commonly employed to fight underground fires in oil fields and of hand-held heat- sensing instruments to track hot spots. But the city turned down almost all the suggestions.

"It's frustrating to find yourself sitting on the sidelines when you know what to do," said a federal official.

City fire officials defended their approach, saying they rejected several proposals after deeming them either too dangerous or possibly ineffective.

One idea that was accepted came from a company in Lynchburg, Va., that sold the city about 3,000 gallons of its product Pyrocool, which, when mixed with water, is intended to absorb heat from a fire until the temperature drops below the point of combustion. A total of 750,000 gallons of the diluted Pyrocool was spread over ground zero in late September and early October, at a cost of about $120,000.

Pyrocool's operations director, Eddie Tyler, said the substance had been used to quickly douse thousands of fires worldwide over the past eight years.

When round-the-clock Pyrocool treatment at the trade center was stopped after a week, Chief Blaich said, there was noticeable progress. But the fires were still burning, in large part because of difficulty in getting the substance down through the debris pile and directly onto hot spots.

In a hot flaming fire, many toxic chemicals are incinerated, with little given off except carbon soot, carbon dioxide, water vapor and other fairly innocuous emissions.

But the relatively low temperatures of the trade center fires mean that traces of dozens of toxic chemicals and heavy metals are carried into the air, including benzene, a cancer-causing compound released when fuels are burned, and styrene, a gas emitted by burning plastic. At times the chemicals in the air at the site reach dangerous levels, particularly when fire flares up, as it did on Nov. 8.

Firefighters and others who work atop the debris pile are supposed to wear respirators at all times, but not everyone does.

Health and environmental officials have repeatedly said that the emissions pose no significant health hazard outside the wreckage zone; and air samples taken even a few yards from the heart of the wreckage usually fail to detect chemicals at dangerous levels.

But aside from any health threat, the emissions have caused persistent sore throats, stinging eyes and frayed nerves in many workers and residents in Lower Manhattan.

No one knows just how long it will take to put out the fires; predictions range from two more weeks to several months. Deputy Assistant Chief Peter E. Hayden, the trade center incident commander, is among the more optimistic.

During a tour of the underground area near hot spots, officials found that the fire did not extend below the third basement level, he said.

Demolition crews are getting close to this point, and when they reach it, Mr. Hayden said, firefighters should be able to extinguish the remaining fire.

Firefighters at the site say they try to stay focused on their work, drawing inspiration from memories of their colleagues who died on Sept. 11.

"I just see their faces," Mr. Maldonado said. "But it is hard. It is nothing but destruction down here."

Those who live and work near the site say that while they appreciate the effort to fight the fires, they are eager for the day when the air will finally be cleared of smoke.

"It really is sickening, depressing," said Jonathan Rapport, a lawyer who works on the 38th floor of the Woolworth Building, overlooking the site. "A good day is when the wind is blowing out to the river so I don't have to smell it."


Scott
 
Last edited:
Dr greening. three questions
  1. What effect did the simultaneous crushing of the upper and lower floors have on the acceleration of the collapse. Compared to an upper section that had no crush on its floors?
  2. would the rail transit tunnels that intersected the debris pile below have any effect on the supply of oxygen to the debris pile?
  3. what characteristics if any does the debris pile fire share with fires in Centralia Pa?
 
Dear All:

Thanks for the many responses. I am a bit overwhelmed now with questions. I would like to respond to all of them, but this will obviously take some time.

For now, I have a few random thoughts that touch on at least some of the issues that have been raised.

To Gravy and others who like the NIST Report - great! Then perhaps you could explain how NIST's collapse initiation mechanism works with maximum pre-collapse downward displacements of only 33 cm?

As for the fires, there are many issues, such as fuel type and oxygen supply. I used a smoldering combustion model because that's the SLOWEST type of self-sustaining combustion there is. It also defines a minimum heat flux from which I derive a fuel consumption rate of about 2 kg/s. (I think, I need to check this!)

For the fuel, I use NIST's own estimates of combustibles per workstation. Then we have the thorny question of the liquid fuels that were stored in the Twin Towers.

We know that diesel-powered generators were used at a number of locations in the WTC complex for emergency electrical power; these generators were supplied by a number of diesel fuel tanks with an estimated total capacity of 100,000 gallons. The location and contents of all the stationary fuel tanks at the WTC is described in a memorandum by W. Hang, President of Toxics Targeting Inc., sent on November 26, 2001 to a number of environmental and public health agencies based in New York City.

Most unfortunately the fate of the diesel fuel stored at the WTC complex during and after 9-11 has only been reported in detail for building 7. WTC 7 has received considerable attention in this regard because Con Edison, the owner and operator of the only electrical substation at the WTC, launched a lawsuit against the New York Port Authority over the destruction of WTC 7. The suit alleged that the building 7 was destroyed on September 11th because the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 resulted in a fire that triggered the explosion of the diesel tanks in WTC 7. The suit alleged that Con Edison's substation would have sustained merely "minor damage" had the Port Authority chosen to adhere to fire codes. Simply locating the diesel tanks in the building was negligent, the suit charges, adding that the tanks were also improperly located and constructed.....

While it appears certain that most of the diesel fuel stored in WTC 7 was consumed in explosions and/or fires during 9-11, the few reports that have been issued on diesel fuel in the remainder of the WTC complex are confusing and contradictory. For example, in a May 2002 article co-authored by J. W. Vincoli, a manager with the Safety, Health and Environmental team at Ground Zero, we read:

•72,000 gallons of diesel fuel were stored in a tank (on basement level 7) for the WTC complex backup generator/power systems. Final status: The tank was eventually located and inspected. Although slightly damaged, no leaks were found. The fuel was removed.

•1,000 gallons of gasoline, contained in individual five-gallon cans, were located throughout many levels of each of the collapsed towers. Final status: No gasoline cans were ever found; presumed destroyed in the collapse and ensuing fires.

The first statement by Mr. Vincoli is puzzling for two reasons: First, there appears to be no record of a 72,000 gallon tank anywhere in the WTC complex. Secondly, there was no basement level 7 in the WTC complex – level B-6 was the lowest! Based on these facts I would conclude that at least some of Mr. Vincoli’s observations are erroneous. On the other hand, K. Gomez, a Regional Spill Engineer with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) wrote in March 2002:

The World Trade Center complex had a storage capacity of more than 80,000 gallons of petroleum, and the adjacent buildings had a storage capacity of more than 170,000 gallons of petroleum. By early November 2001, DEC had completed inspections of 84 tanks ranging in size from 275 gallons to 20,000 gallons at 42 buildings. All of the tanks contained fuel oil, diesel, or kerosene, which was used for heating purposes or as fuel for backup generators. Except for 18 underground tanks, all of the tanks were above ground within the buildings. In Zone 1 (The main WTC complex), except for 6 of 12 tanks in Buildings 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center, DEC inspected all of the buildings and associated tanks. DEC inspectors identified three tanks, with a combined storage capacity of 32,000 gallons, in two buildings that were damaged as a direct result of building collapses; two buildings with three tanks with piping damage; and two buildings with eight tanks with the fill and/or vent pipes that could not be inspected because they were buried by debris—these will be tested before being put back into service.

While the data on fuel oil at the WTC presented by Ms. Gomez certainly looks reasonable in relation to the Toxics Targeting memorandum it should be compared with the statement made in the article “EPA Response to September 11th “ found on the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) website at http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/yearreview.htm :

“EPA on-scene coordinators pumped approximately 600,000 gallons of oil from the World Trade Center sub-basements and removed a host of other hazardous materials, such as dry cleaning fluids, fire extinguishers, and underground fuel tanks.”

Given that Toxics Targeting identified a total of only 76,520 gallons of fuel oil stored at the WTC complex, it is hard to imagine how the EPA “pumped 600,000 gallons of oil from WTC sub-basements” It appears more likely that the EPA figure should read 60,000 gallons, unless there are unknown oilfields located beneath Lower Manhattan!

Thus, in spite of some inconsistencies and reporting errors, it is reasonable to conclude that as much as 16,000 gallons of diesel or similar fuel oil was spilled at various locations throughout the WTC complex during, or shortly after 9-11. Further, based on the distribution of tanks described by DEC inspectors and the Toxics Targeting memorandum, I would estimate that no more than a quarter, or 4,000 gallons, of the un-recovered diesel fuel was spilled in, or immediately below, WTC 1 & 2.

Thus I would argue that the contribution of LIQUID fuels to the total amount of combustibles in the WTC rubble pile was relatively small and does not explain the prolonged fires.
 
To Gravy and others who like the NIST Report - great! Then perhaps you could explain how NIST's collapse initiation mechanism works with maximum pre-collapse downward displacements of only 33 cm?

Forgive me if I'm confused -- and, as you say, there is a lot of information to digest here -- but isn't this NIST's estimated maximum displacement during the quasi-static period prior to collapse? In other words, isn't this how much the structure sagged? Isn't this a totally different number from how far the upper block, or portions thereof, would fall once the collapse began in earnest (more like 2 to 3 meters)?

As for the fires, there are many issues, such as fuel type and oxygen supply. I used a smoldering combustion model because that's the SLOWEST type of self-sustaining combustion there is. It also defines a minimum heat flux from which I derive a fuel consumption rate of about 2 kg/s. (I think, I need to check this!)

...

Thus I would argue that the contribution of LIQUID fuels to the total amount of combustibles in the WTC rubble pile was relatively small and does not explain the prolonged fires.

I believe you'll find you've still overestimated the heat flux. If you had a fire in a thermos bottle, it would be self-sustaining at rates all the way down to zero. While the Pile wasn't completely insulated, it surely was insulated, and I don't believe there is any hard minimum fuel consumption rate.

Also, I agree with you that the LIQUID fuel contribution is minor, compared to that of combustible solids in the structure, after the estimates of the DELTA group. This doesn't affect my question.
 
R. Mackey:

Yes, it IS supposed to be how much the floors sagged prior to "global collapse ensuing".

But this is quite insufficient to exceed the elastic strain absorbing capacity of the structure. So can you explain how this works?

There IS a minimum for smoldering combustion. Smoldering rates reported by Ohlemiller at NIST are generally at least 2 x 10^-3 cm/sec. That gives 24 days for the burn through of a rubble pile that is 40 meters deep!
 
I know you have alot to answer Dr. Greening, but when you get around to it, give me your opinion on how much of the "dust" you feel was pulverized concrete versus drywall and other entities. As well, how much of the concrete do you feel was pulverized to dust.

Thanks

TAM:)
 
One thing that can also not be forgotten is that steel-Iron it self can be a fuel at temperatures where the Oxide is compromised.
Such as in the hydrogen reaction, or during sulfidication.
 
R. Mackey:

Yes, it IS supposed to be how much the floors sagged prior to "global collapse ensuing".

But this is quite insufficient to exceed the elastic strain absorbing capacity of the structure. So can you explain how this works?

Thank you, I had misunderstood what you were concluding from that observation. I had thought you were implying that a fall of 30 cm wouldn't build up enough momentum to initiate the progressive collapse, which obviously isn't relevant.

In that case, your observation is quite a bit more complicated, indeed too complicated for me to give a quick answer. Let me then ask how you arrived at yours. How did you conclude that it isn't enough to exceed the structure's capacity for strain? And does that estimate take into account the destroyed and missing structural members? Has it been adjusted for temperature effects and annealing of structural members?

There IS a minimum for smoldering combustion. Smoldering rates reported by Ohlemiller at NIST are generally at least 2 x 10^-3 cm/sec. That gives 24 days for the burn through of a rubble pile that is 40 meters deep!

But here you presume that combustion takes place continuously. In reality, such combustion will be modulated by availability of oxygen.

If I take two identical hot coals out of my barbeque, and place one of them in a sealed, ideal thermos bottle, the sealed one will remain hot after the exposed one has fully combusted and cooled. And if I then remove the remaining coal from the bottle, exposing it to the atmosphere, it will resume combustion as before.

This is obviously a contrived example, but wouldn't you agree that you cannot simplify the Pile as you have done?
 
R. Mackey:

NIST’s key statement concerning the WTC collapse-initiating event, is:

The change in potential energy due to the downward movement of
building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy
that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued

This statement may be expressed mathematically as:

Change in Potential energy = Absorbed strain energy

or, Mg(Dd) = Es

M is the building mass above the impact floor
g is the acceleration due to gravity
Dd is the downward displacement of the building mass
Es is the absorbed strain energy

The NIST report suggests that the quantity Dd, the downward displacement in the upper section of each Tower, increased at a rate ~ 5 – 15 cm/hr after the aircraft impacts. This slow downward sagging of floors in the impact zone over a period of less than two hours, meant that a portion of the enormous potential energy stored in each Tower was slowly, but inexorably, converted into strain energy Es. This strain energy eventually exceeded the elastic limit of the structural steel and produced irreversible deformations of support columns immediately below the impact zones – columns that had a finite capacity to absorb strain energy.

Consideration of the conversion of potential energy into downward motion, first by reversible elastic yielding, then by irreversible column deformation, suggests the idea of a collapse-initiating energy equal to the maximum strain energy capacity Es(max) of the support columns on a single floor.

I have previously modeled the WTC collapse in terms of a quantity I called E1, the average energy needed to collapse one WTC floor. Clearly E1 is equivalent to the collapse-initiating energy Es(max) . In my report Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse Events of September 11th 2001, Section 4.2, a value of about 0.6 gigajoules (0.6 x 10^9 joules) was estimated for E1. This is very close to the value estimated by Bazant.

We may also derive independent values of E1 using NIST’s Dd data for WTC 1 and WTC 2. To do this we proceed as follows:

For WTC 1, with fourteen floors above the impact zone, we represent M by M14 and for WTC 2, with twenty-nine floors above the impact zone, we represent M by M29.

Since the mass of one Twin Tower is generally taken to be ~ 510,000,000 kg, we have:

M14 = 64,900,000 kg

M29 = 134,450,000 kg

Using NIST’s values of Dd, namely 10 cm for WTC 1 and 30 cm for WTC 2, in the formula Es = E1 = Mg(Dh) (with g taken as 9.81 m/s2), we find:

E1(WTC 1) = 0.637 x 10^8 Joules and E1(WTC 2) = 3.96 x 10^8 Joules

These values for E1 are problematic because E1 should be essentially the same for each Tower. In addition I have shown that a more realistic value for Dd for WTC 2 based on a 1° tilt prior to collapse is ~ 1 meter, in which case E1(WTC 2) » 1.4 X 10^9 Joules.

TAM:

Horarius has given a link to an article I wrote on concrete pulverization. Just briefly, from that article:

The most detailed analyses of WTC dust appears to be those reported by P. J. Lioy et al. in Vol. 110, page 703, of Environmental Health Perspectives, J. K. McGee et al. in Vol. 111, page 972, of Environmental Health Perspectives , and by G. P. Meeker in the USGS Report No. 2005–1031. These authors collected samples shortly after 9-11 at several locations within 1 km of ground zero and carried out detailed chemical and particle size analyses; their typical findings are as follows:

(i) In addition to pulverized concrete and gypsum, the WTC dust samples contained man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) such as slag wool and rock wool, as well as asbestos, paper, fabric, plastic and wood.
(ii) Vitreous fibers accounted for as much as 40 %, and cellulose-based material up to 10 %, of the mass of the dust.
(iii) For samples collected closest (< 400 meters) to ground zero, the particle size distribution was: 16 % greater than 300 microns; 46 % in the range 75 – 300 microns; 38 % less than 75 microns.

However, data by Lioy and McGee also show that the composition of the WTC dust varied with the distance of the sampling site from ground zero. In particular, samples collected within one or two city blocks of the WTC site contained much more pulverized concrete and gypsum than samples collected at locations over 0.5 km from the site which contained more low density material such as MMVF. This result is also consistent with WTC infrared reflectance maps recorded on September 16th 2001 and subsequently reported by R. N. Clark at the USGS. These maps show that concrete and gypsum-type particulate deposition occurred mainly to the south of the WTC site and was confined to an area approximately 200 meters wide and 400 meters long.
 
Thank you, I had misunderstood what you were concluding from that observation. I had thought you were implying that a fall of 30 cm wouldn't build up enough momentum to initiate the progressive collapse, which obviously isn't relevant.

In that case, your observation is quite a bit more complicated, indeed too complicated for me to give a quick answer. Let me then ask how you arrived at yours. How did you conclude that it isn't enough to exceed the structure's capacity for strain? And does that estimate take into account the destroyed and missing structural members? Has it been adjusted for temperature effects and annealing of structural members?



But here you presume that combustion takes place continuously. In reality, such combustion will be modulated by availability of oxygen.

If I take two identical hot coals out of my barbeque, and place one of them in a sealed, ideal thermos bottle, the sealed one will remain hot after the exposed one has fully combusted and cooled. And if I then remove the remaining coal from the bottle, exposing it to the atmosphere, it will resume combustion as before.

This is obviously a contrived example, but wouldn't you agree that you cannot simplify the Pile as you have done?

The air sample data is Critical to understand just what is burning and how much, by the combustion by products.

The coal in the Thermos bottle is a good analogy until compare with the air sample data, something has to sustain the rate of burn in regards to the amount of byproducts produced.

I had always thought that the air quality data did not back up the insulation theory. I just did not want to mention it for being thought a crazy nut again, wait I am a crazy nut, never mind.
 
Chainsaw:

I always enjoy your crazy chemistry ideas. You are a man who thinks "outside the box"!
 
A. W. Smith:

To answer one of your questions about the PATH tunnels:

I have always wondered if they acted as giant "tuyeres" - the pipes that direct air into a blast furnace. This would generate tremendous heat, but would also burn all the fuel very rapidly, so I am really not sure...
 
Apollo:

interesting. Do they break down Gypsum (wall board) versus the concrete?

TAM:)
 
A. W. Smith:

To answer one of your questions about the PATH tunnels:

I have always wondered if they acted as giant "tuyeres" - the pipes that direct air into a blast furnace. This would generate tremendous heat, but would also burn all the fuel very rapidly, so I am really not sure...

If i can recall the path tunnels were plugged soon after 9/11 because of flooding concerns. But I think there was a subway tunnel that i remember seeing a photo of that had debris through its ceiling. Which would probably be on the east side of the site. did the flammable materials also include coatings of partitions and otherwise inflamable steel office furniture? carpets? drywall paper facing and the like? and not just a total of material for an average workstation?
 

Back
Top Bottom