Saturday, September 11, 2010

OneVoiceMore suggests papers to read

On my youtube channel, the user OneMoreVoice has responded to my request to name papers by title, author, date and publisher that best support his allegations that the common story of 9/11 needs to be rewritten. These are his comments, made on 9/11/2010 (numbering in blue added by me for further reference):

Feel free to Google any of these technical works.
(1) "Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust" - Jim Hoffman
(2) "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" - Dr. Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, and others
(3) "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials" - By Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, & Steven E. Jones
(4) "Mysteries of the Twin Towers" - R. Herbst
(5) "The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis" - By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti
Here's another pile of scientists and scholars and professionals for you to browse:
(6) Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen - Dr. Crockett Grabbe
(7) "Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of WTC 1" - Gordon Ross, Journal of 9/11 Studies
(8) "Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage" - Dr. Crockett Grabbe
(9) "Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories" - Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager
(10) "Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2" - Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007
(11) "The Destruction of WTC 7" - Vesa Raiskila
(12) "The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?" - Eric Douglas, Architect

Do me a favor. At least pretend to read some of these before you challenge me to produce documentation. That kind of chicanery is beneath an intelligent discussion.
It is telling that documents 6 to 12 are listed in that sequence on's page Technical Articles suggesting that the list is not the result ofOneMoreVoice's own research, but simply copied and pasted from a website in which he places an inordinate amount of trust.

These list refers to the following articles:
(1) Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust - Jim Hoffman,, 12/07/2009 (v. 1.03)
(2) Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe - Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 pp. 7-31, 2009
(3) Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials - Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley and Steven E. Jones; The Environmentalist Volume 29, Number 1, 56-63; March 2009
(4) Mysteries of the Twin Towers - R. Herbst; ?; Rev. 12.0 February 2009
(5) The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis - Graeme MacQueen, Tony Szamboti; Journal of 911 Studies; January 14, 2009
(6) Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Se en - Crockett Grabbe; Journal of Engineering Mechanics Volume 136, Issue 4, pp. 538-539 (April 2010)
(7) Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1 - Gordon Ross; Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 1 June 2006
(8) Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage - Dr. Crockett Grabbe; Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 14 August 2007
(9) Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories - Kevin Ryan; ?; March 28, 2006
(10) Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001 - Jerry Lobdill; Journal of 9/11 StudiesVolume 12 June 2007
(11) The Destruction of WTC 7 - Vesa Raiskila? (article itself contains no credit); personal blog; first published April 2005, latest revision not dated
(12) The NIST WTC Investigation--How Real Was The Simulation? - Eric Douglas; Journal of 9/11 StudiesVolume 6 December 2006

Following my quick comments to these. I will strike out those item numbers that I find ill-suited for the debate of specific issues. I will bold those items that I find well-suited. Those item numbers that have no special formatting I have not decided upon, and would need some convincing.

(1) This is merely a digest of (2), seeking to explain the findings of (1). I propose we skip this article and go straight to (2)
(2) Arguably the most important, most widely claimed, and practically the only paper that purports to contain direct proof of thermite. I will definitely respond to it at length.
(3) Claims that unusual materials were found that somehow might be explained by the use of thermite or "superthermite". However, nowhere in the article is a mechanism proposed that indeed would constitute such an explanation. No physical or chemical properties of thermite are discussed at a level of measurements and numbers that could serve as a base to determine whether some observations could indeed follow from these. The article remains vague and speculative and not very conductive to formulationg an alternative hypothesis about the macroevents of 9/11
(4) Is a summary of many issues raised by the TM and thus not at all responsive of my challenge to support specific claims with specific research. While maybe valuable as a summary, it seems to contain no original reasearch. It is also not realistic to debate all issues raised there on leisure time within a short space of time of days or weeks.
(5) The "jolt" referred to in the title of the paper is taken from Bazant and Zhou's Addendum to ‘‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis’’ - Journal of Engineering Mechanics, March 2002, page 369. Quote: "...if the upper part had the height of only 3 stories, ... the upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times. Instead of one powerful jolt, this could lead to a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal.". This is the only mention of a "jolt" in the Bazant and Zhou papers, and nothing that NIST picks up upon. MacQueen and Tony Szamboti construe this note as Bazant and Zhou predicting a powerful jolt in the real world, if the upper block behaved as a rigid block, when it impacts the first upper block floor after collapse initiation. That assumption is false. Bazant and Zhou, in their original paper, present a theoretical best case scenario with regards to column survivability, that would eventuate if all upper block columns were to impact corresponding lower block columns simultaneously. They show that even in that best case scenario, the kinetic energy and momentum picked up by the upper block during its initial fall through the first destroyed floor (3.7m) would suffice to fail the structure below, and send the tower to unterminable cascading collapse. However, in the real world, a scenriao would play out that is worse. In any case, including the vast majority of cases that would not have "a powerful jolt", global collapse is expected, as the structure in no way is capable of absorbing the initial momentumg an energy.
The paper is discussed at JREF.
(6) This article discusses a paper by K.A. Se en in the February, 2008, Vol. 134 No. 2 of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics , pp. 125-132. I can't access that paper without paying a hefty price to the journal, therefore I can't debate that discussion.
(7) Refuted by To whom it may concern - Frank R. Greening, Volume 2 August 2006. Discussed at JREF. Main flaw: Ross calculates energy lost to "Momentum losses", and also energy lost to pulverization of concrete. However, momentum losses of energy occur through inelastic collision, and the energy lost in that inelastic collision mainly goes into material strain, such as pulverization of concrete. Ross thus accounts for that strain twice! He discounts 304MJ twice for pulverization in upper and lower block, when in fact he should not deduct these 608MJ at all. His energy balance thus turns from a "Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ" to an Energy Surplus of 218MJ! In other words: Correcting Ross for this obvious blunder will lead to the prediction that the initial collapse cannot be arrested, and will propagate.
(8) Has several silly assumptions. I'd take the challenge, but really this paper should not be used by any CTist. It is pretty embarrassing. Some silly assumptions: a) Cars are only or mainly damaged by material that was ejected high in the towers, and then fell freely without being further pushed by anything. I contend: Most of the debris was blown by strong horizontal winds close to street level after most of the collapse had occurred, and kinetic energy been deflected to all four sides  b) That "squib" (Figure 4) contains large parts. I see no reason why not most or all of it should be small particles (dust). With all those nearby cameras on the towers, that large squib should be found much more clearly elsewhere. Image quality (resolution, contrast) is very bad. The image is taken from, frame 7. There, you will notice that this squib "suddenly" appears between frames 5 and 6, then only intensifies between 6 and 7, and hardly changes position between 7 and 8, and 8 and 9, while the big debris cloud above rapidly falls and finally engulfs the squib from frame 10 on. this shows that the material ejected in that squib must have been ejected rapidly, then slowed much, and then have remained afloat, indicating that it is mainly dust.
(9) This is a political opinion piece, and a rant with many personal accusations, but not a scientific paper. He repeats some of the old strawmen ("not enough to melt steel") and even brings up the long-discredited "Larry said pull it" silliness. Claims that "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." - from a 1964 news piece! That statement is plain preposterous, and if Ryan knew anything about structural engineering, he'd know that. Maybe that quote talked about live loads (office contents)? We don't know. He attacks the pancaking theory - which is not the incumbant theory today. When Ryan talks about steel properties and UL certification, it bears keeping in mind that Ryan is NOT a metallurgist, or structural engineer, or did ever do any work in fields related to steel construction. He is a chemist. Degree unknown. He worked at UL in the the field of water treatment (environmental health) and is out of his field of expertise when he questions UL's involvement in steel certifiction! I tend to dismiss this article as unscientific.
debunked at
(10) The assumption of "white hot temperatures" is unfounded, and not supported by images of glowing liquid flows from the 80th-82st floor of the WTC2 prior to collapse. The paper further asummes that "The evidence is overwhelming that thermite or a thermite-like mixture was used in the WTC 2 tower very shortly before the building fell", instead of proving it. It assumes that "[i]t appears that in the WTC [thermite] was used to cut structural steel in an early phase of controlled demolition". It misleadingly states that thermites "release a large quantity of heat", when in fact they release a lot less heat (per mass unit) than, for example, fule or paper. "Spectre Enterprises’s patent for a linear pyrotechnic cutting device" is not applicable to cutting structures as large (thick) as steel columns. Lobdill states that "thermate is said to have superior steel cutting capabilities compared with thermite" and believes that this is "for reasons that have not yet been fully explained". What is known however is that sulfur does not add to the energy release. Sulfur is know to lower the melting point of steel, that os probably why thermite+sulfur works better. On page 6: "Now consider the problem of the molten metal flowing from the 82nd floor of WTC 2. Some have suggested that this metal was the eutectic mixture of Fe and S.". Who?? And why? On page 7, the claim is made that iron-rich spheres can only be created by melting iron. No reference is given.  The conclusion finally does not make any claims about any events of 9/11. The purpose of the paper was not to prove any claim about 9/11. I therefore tend to eliminate this paper from the debate. It may howeber be useful as a reference for debate claims made elsewhere.
(11) This blog entry ,akes a number of claims, none of which original. It repeats outdated (debunked) claims about freefall and collapse duration. It is not a paper.
(12) From the Abstract: "This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, are not inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers."  Sounds legit. I will concede, without debate, that very likely, the model simulations done by NIST deviate somewhat from reality and are in part uncertain. This does not, however, lend any credibility to any competing claims, if these are made. I therefore think this paper is not suited as a topic for the kind of debate I envision in this blog. It may be valuable as a reference for debate on claims made elsewhere.

No comments:

Post a Comment