Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Not Even Bombs Can Do This-Logic And Reason Shall Prevail

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-23-06 12:29 PM
Original message
Not Even Bombs Can Do This-Logic And Reason Shall Prevail
The notion that bombs can do what is seen below belies logic and reason. Bombs only blow holes in things as big as the towers.



What we see above was continuous from top to bottom, as shown below.



What we saw was caused by a precision series of high speed detonations.



All the way down. Continuous detonations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-24-06 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. No Posts = DU.er's Think DEMO. Not Bombs Took Towers Down. Now .........
we must deal with the issue of the towers being blown apart fom the top down in a continuous wave of high speed detonations.

We are getting past the first question: WHAT HAPPENED?

Meaning; We know the towers were not brought down by planes and fire or Muslim terrorists bringing back backs of high explosives into closets of the towers. Meaning we KNOW it was a demolition, but ................................................................................................. how? HOW was it done?????

That is our question now, so, ............ focus. Stop with the discussion of the inconsequential issues. Make a list of them, later we will need them, but now, ................. now.................. focus on how those towers descended at free fall being ripped apart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libertypirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-24-06 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You are on the right track!!!!!
Edited on Fri Feb-24-06 09:43 PM by libertypirate
The progression of detonations, accelerated faster then the falling debris.

The detonations are the point of physical separation of the structure, it accelerated faster then the building was falling apart. The whole effect gives the visual of free fall because the material unless accelerated downward still must travel from it's starting location down to the ground.

How can the path of destruction move faster then the falling debris?

How can a building fall apart of it's own load in a manner where the section falling apart is below the debris causing it to do so?

When watching the video of the collapse the expansion outward meaning not down was the effecting force which drove the towers to collapse.... The building debris, uniformly during the entire collapse expelled material away from the region causing the damage, below the falling debris.




On edit:

A building that falls apart should do so down not out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-24-06 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. a firefighter stated this..........
he said that during rescue he didnt see chairs, desks,cabinets not even peices ,nothing. The only thing he said he could find was one small peice of a telephone pad. everything disintigrated.

anyone have that clip ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
134. This one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. Before you get to far ahead of yourself, you
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 06:49 AM by LARED
might need to answer the question about the volume of air inside the towers and explain why the entrapped air explains the horizontal movement of debris as seen in the images.


An issue the average CT'er fails to consider is that all demotions seen in the past are performed on building stripped of material inside. They are hollow shells PURPOSEFULLY cleared of materials that CREATE large volumes of dust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. No Need To Explain Air Moving Dust After Steel Flies Past Dust
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 12:49 PM by Christophera
Maybe you are not aware of it but you have just applied a substancial distortion to your communication.

You have phrased you statement as if it is known that trapped air moved heavy debris horizontally. It is not known, therefore I don't have to explain it. In fact it is not credible that lightly pressurized air from a collapsing series of floors could throw steel beams and alluminum facade out in front of a cloud of expanding debris. And, those floors above the dust are not intact, not capable of pressurizing anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. OKee, Dokee (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
117. Translation
(That is a fact I, Lared, cannot deal with. I'll ignore it and make it go away. Hopefully no one will notice)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. So the volume of each floor goes from ..
approximately half a million cubic feet to zero in fractions of seconds and it is "lightly pressurized"? Right:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
85. The Deceptions About Air Pressure Causing Dust/Debris Start Here
Edited on Mon Feb-27-06 05:48 PM by Christophera
Lared initially asserts that there was enough air pressure caused by pancaking (sic) floors to blow debris outside the building.

Notice he starts early with side tracking the conversation that ended up with a number of posts about drywall. He adds to the confusion by stating that empty buildings have less dust in them than those with furnishings. Dust inside inhabited spaces is mostly skin. At any rate the issue is moot and unproductive because it ends up talking about something which has nothing to do with the strcutural qualities of the towers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
112. Lared, my favorite debunker
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 09:27 PM by simonm
You are my favorite DU 9/11 debunker. Constantly always obfuscating the real issue. I hope they pay you well.

What kind of air can eject steel beams hundreds of feet and cut them to a convenient size for trucks?

Concrete slabs falling on each other is BS.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
http://www.911eyewitness.com


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. Controlled demolitions, no doubt.
And, LARED, pulverized concrete creates a lot of dust.

MIHOP all the way. Fire has never, never, in the entire history of the modern steel skyscraper, caused a building to collapse. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to significantly weaken the building's steel frame. It had to be a controlled demolition.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I agree pulverized concrete would make a lot of dust
The issue is how much of the dust observed is pulverized concrete. Samples taken outside the footprint of the collapse indicate concrete is present but is only one constitute of the dust. There is glass, cellulose, gypsum. vermiculite, fiberglass, etc. In short when you are looking at the images posted, the concrete is but one constitute of the dust cloud.

Fire is only a piece of why the towers collapse. Perhaps you have overlooked this or maybe even missed it, but very large aircraft flying at high rates of speed into the towers did significant damage, compromising the structure .

All normal office fires burn hot enough to weaken steel. That's why they are fireproofed. A consequence of those pesky airplanes impacting the building is that the fire safety systems were compromised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Um, sorry. I must disagree.
The fireproofing of the beams and steel pillars, most likely, is for insulation purposes. It's probably designed to prevent heat from being conducted through the beams and igniting paper or other combustibles on other floors. If the impacts did that much damage to the buildings, then a big chunk of the top of the building would have fallen, perhaps, but the lower portions would remain in tact. Besides, nothing hit Tower #7. How can a simple fire explain its complete destruction?

http://www.vandea.com/sounds/http://www.vandea.com/sounds/faileddemolition.mov">Check this out if you want to see what would happen if the plane impact weakened only a part of the central core and then caused a chunk of the building to fall. Steel structures are very, very strong.

Nope. Controlled demolition is the only reasonable answer. And a kerosene fire can not (unless under high pressure) create a fire hot enough to weaken steel beams. Sorry. The laws of physics can't be rationalized away.

-Laelth



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. You are free to disagree, but I suggest if you do,
you should disagree based on an understanding of the subject. Something you clearly do not possess

The fireproofing of the beams and steel pillars, most likely, is for insulation purposes. It's probably designed to prevent heat from being conducted through the beams and igniting paper or other combustibles on other floors.

Is just wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. He's absolutely right
about the insulation purposes. It's there to insulate the steel from heat transfer in a fire. And who are you to challenge anyone's credentials or understanding of structural engineering? You have neither.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. I don't think so...
Spray on Fireproofing
Steel may not burn but will soften and weaken when subjected to intense heat. This is the reason for spray-on fireproofing. The spray-on material may be a portland-cement- or gypsum-based product and can be applied directly to most structural steel columns, beams and decking.

The code intends that the fire-resistive protection for structural members be applied to the individual structural member. The fire-protection for structural steel is in direct relation to a principle known as the "mass effect". The amount of fire-protection depends on the weight of a structural steel member. A heavy, massive structural steel member behaves so that the heat applied to the surface during a fire is absorbed away from the surface, resulting in lower steel surface temperatures. Thus, the insulating thickness indicated by a test or the code, should not be used for members with a smaller weight steel member than that specified in the specific fire test or UBC table.


http://www.nwcb.org/fire.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. No, he's absolutely wrong
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 05:41 PM by LARED
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6A.pdf

As the document's security measures prevent me from doing a cut and paste you need to go to 33 (adobe page number) and read it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. So the purpose of insulation is not to insulate?
Tell me more, please. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Nice try
To refresh your mind, the statement was

The fireproofing of the beams and steel pillars, most likely, is for insulation purposes. It's probably designed to prevent heat from being conducted through the beams and igniting paper or other combustibles on other floors.

The issue is not does it insulate as you are now trying to frame the issue. The question is why is fireproofing installed; what is it designed function?

It is not designed to prevent the steel for conducting heat to other combustibles (although it does do that), it is designed to protect the steel from excessive heating causing it to weaken.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. And he's absolutely right
about the insulation purposes.

Now, before we enter the looking glass, let me make a point: your complete confidence in pseudo-scientific TV propaganda is as ridiculous as any claim made here about anything, so please don't give yourself airs. Your knowledge of building science is no better than anyone else's I can assure you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. He's wrong, your wrong and
I'm sure you will continue your sophistry no matter what the facts are. It should be noted that the original poster you are so ardently defending seems to be silent on the matter as to what he meant.

I can assure you our point is also quite pointless as you have absolutely clue what you are talking about. You obviously have not bothered to read any of the information provided regarding this issue and seem content to spin your BS for your own purposes. Don't worry about me pointing this out as I have complete confidence it will not affect your posting habits one iota, nor do I need to point out your utter lack of real knowledge in building science, as it is self evident to those that do have an understanding in the subject


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #37
56. The fact is that fireproofing is applied to steel for insulation purposes.
If you want to keep denying it, fine. But I don't know what you think you're accomplishing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #56
143. It Would Be Nice If Accountability To Facts Was Possible
However, Obfuscation is all we get from LARED. I've even seen his confusing and distracting assertions competently dispelled with the same facts several times in the same thread by different posters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Man, I don't know who you're working for, but ...
you're welcome to believe what you want (as rudely and as irrationally as you please). The laws of physics are on my side.

Have a nice day. :wave:

-Laelth

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Pardon me if I seemed rude
As an real engineer it's a bit tiring having every Google trained engineer in the 9/11 truth community trying to explain stuff they know little about because it suits an agenda.

Then rather than doing a little research they just dig their feet deeper in the sand telling me I'm "working for someone".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. OK. I shall try to take you seriously.
Don't you think an explosion (as opposed to an implosion, the standard controlled-demolition method) would create this amount of dust? If not, why not?

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. The amount of dust seen
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 10:08 PM by LARED
is the result of many million pounds of friable materials in the towers; like spray on insulation on every piece of steel, (this includes the steel pans under each concrete floor plus every joist under the floor - 100's per floor), hundreds of acres of ceiling tiles, millions of square feet of sheetrock wall, tens of thousands of glass windows, and the 8 million pounds of vermiculite in the outer columns between the facade and the steel column. Not to mention the 220 acres of lightweight concrete floors.

All of this friable material created a massive amount of dust and lightweight debris that was pushed out of the towers as they collapsed. The dust clouds move horizontally because as each floor pancaked, it compressed the air and vented it sideway. This is one of multiple mechanisms that created and moved the dust clouds.

Even if the towers were rigged with explosives, the dust and energy release generated by the collapse itself would be orders of magnitude larger than any imaginable amount of hidden explosives designed to collapse the tower. To put it crudely the dust created by explosives would be like believing a fart changed the wind direction.

If someone wants to prove explosive were used, the dust cloud as evidence is a poor choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. amount of dust seen
Your argument makes sense only if all those ceiling tiles and all that drywall was ground up into
powder. The pressure of falling floors would, yes, eject the air energetically, but it would not
pulverize the ceiling tiles and the drywall. They would be pressed flat by the falling floors.
The only way they would be turned to dust is by explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #38
49. So if I have a vertical sheet of sheet rock..
and violently compressed it from each end it would squash flat into a horizontal sheet of sheet rock? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. squash flat into a horizontal sheet
I didn't say that. Have you ever worked with sheet rock? It breaks up like sheets of ice. It
doesn't pulverize unless you grind it up--or blast it with explosives.

And what vaporized the carpets? When they took the pile apart, they should have been constantly
hampered by acre-wide membranes of carpets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. Everytime I worked with it I was covered in dust.
I can crumble sheetrock into dust with my bare hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. I was covered in dust.
Sure, you were covered in dust from the cuts you made. And you can crumble it in your hands.
But a partition will buckle and fold. Ice on a lake (remember ice? I miss ice.) doesn't grind itself
into a sno-cone. It breaks into plates. Drywall is the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #55
70. If I smash ice with a hammer it crushes into a sno-cone..
I think you are underestimating the forces involved in the collapse.

How would explosives pulverize it into dust unless it was in very close proximity? Why plaster the towers with more explosives than needed to bring them down? For you know as well as I do that all that was needed were explosives on all the support columns on one lower floor. Why the extra explosives just to pulverize sheetrock?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. Why the extra explosives
For a long time I thought 9/11 could not possibly be a Bushcist plot, because
why wouldn't they have better cover stories if they controlled everything?

Now I think these guys are just plain lunatics. They let Osama go at Tora Bora,
they completely miscalculated about Iraq. They shot down flight 93 after the
passengers had regained control of the cockpit. They can't do anything right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #74
93. So 911 was not a typical controlled demolition?
since it was not done the way most controlled demolitions were done, why is it so obvious that it was CD? Can you give any examples of previous CD that mimic the WTCs?

And if they are such fuck ups, how have they pulled off a near perfect coverup? You still can't tell me how they did it nor are you able to name a single mid and low level conspirator. You would think that such an incompetent group would have slipped up by now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #70
86. As If One Low Floor caused This Mushrooming Wall Of Concrete & Steel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Except it's not just concrete and steel
It's gypsum from drywalls, tiles from drop ceilings, spray on fire-proofing from steel, vermiculite from the perimeter columns, glass, carpets, wood, paper, and of course concrete. Not necessarily in order of weight or volume.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. Very Good, Now Why Is It All Ground Up? If You Assert That, Show How
and no, collapses do not do that to the contents of buildings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. Very, very funny. You cannot possibly believe
what you wrote. Have you every heard of the word friable?

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/friable

You get an A+ for giggles




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. 3,000 Dead & You Laugh While Forgetting Desks & File Cabinets Ground Up
too.

Oh, and carpets are not friable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #86
94. My point is ..
much more explosives were used in the WTC than were needed? Why? It simply does not make sense to increase the risk of exposure for what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #94
96. None. They wanted to take it down, not knock it over.
Try to get the jello-mold idea out of your mind, because they were a little more solid than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #96
99. You make no sense..
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 07:07 AM by hack89
Are you saying that with all the supports on one floor severed at once it would topple like a tree? Give me a break - very heavy objects fall only one way and that is straight down - where would the horizontal forces come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #99
106. They're called lateral loads
and they're huge. Welcome to reality. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. And what creates those lateral loads?
I thought loads implied a force. What lateral forces are acting on the building? And how large are they relative to gravity acting on all that weight? Do you even understand the concepts you are espousing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. Wind and the occasional earthquake
usually measured as moment (force x distance). And since we're dealing with NY harbor winds and quarter-mile high structures, the overturning moments were tremendous.

Here's a more detailed definition:

"Moment: A way of describing a force acting at a distance. A teeter-totter is a good example. You (the 160 lb. adult) take your child (40 lbs.) down to the park. You put your child on the seat which is resting in the tanbark, then you walk to the other end to get on. Let's assume that the seats are 14 feet apart and the hinge point is fixed at the middle of the board, 7 feet away from each seat. (Think of the hinge like an equal sign.)

"In each instance, the units are expressed as "distance" times "force"; foot-pounds of "Moment". When moments are stated, they are typically accompanied by a reference point; a location from which the distance to the acting force is measured. In the above example, the hinge is the reference point. Your child generates (7 feet times 40 pounds) or 280 ft.-lbs. of moment about the hinge, while you generate 1,120 ft.-lbs. of moment. This is the numerical explanation of why you and your child did not balance in Case #2. The calculation of moments is so basic to the engineering process it is required for members, walls, foundations and even entire buildings."

http://www.mcvicker.com/offtech/smwmsp.htm

p.s. is that a light bulb I see floating over your head? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #111
113. But you didn't answer the real question ..
since the forces associated with gravity were orders of magnitude greater than the winds you have yet to show that the WTC would topple. You honestly think that the wind would push the towers over a significant amount before the towers hit the ground? It took approximately 10 to 15 secs for the towers to collapse - just how far would those "harbor winds" push thousands of tons of building in 15 seconds? Is that a dim bulb I see over your head?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. Yes, they would topple, and no, they wouldn't blow themselves up first.
Not without a little help anyway. :)

p.s. the lateral loads are worked out in the NIST report if you're really interested in learning about them, which I'm beginning to doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. The issue is the relative size of those lateral loads
compared to the vertical force of gravity - the issue you keep ignoring.

So what you believe is that standard controlled demolition techniques would not work on the WTC - an interesting statement considering it was "obviously" CD. What you really are saying is that the WTC required CD techniques never used before. I have no doubt that you have links that prove all this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #116
120. You're mixing up two issues, but here we go:
1) Yes, lateral loads can exceed gravity loads, depending on conditions. It wasn't particularly windy on 9/11 but there was still plenty of loading as each tower presented four flat 6-acre sails to the harbor winds.

2) Look up the calculations in the NIST report if you're actually interested.

3) Yes, the towers were obviously demolished with explosives, so it was obviously CD.

Anything else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. OK n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #113
148. But You Ignored The Reason For the Concrete Core-Torsion
To think that the towers would be blown over shows that you have ZERO engineering knowledge. The towers were threatened by the twisting forces caused by the sides of the towers "flying" in high winds. Torsional deformations would remove the load bearing capacity of the perimeter walls if the tower wasn't rigid enough.

They topple after they fail from torsion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #148
149. You are babbling n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #149
151. If I'm Babbling, Then You Can Answer A Simple Question, Asked Many Times
Edited on Thu Mar-02-06 05:38 PM by Christophera
already.

Why are the 47 steel core columns FEMA says existed inside the core NOT seen protruding from the top of the core in the below image of the WTC 2 core?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #151
154. How many separate pieces of steel ..
was each core column made of? You don't honestly believe that each core column was a single piece of steel - do you?

The core columns disintegrated along with the rest of the steel frame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #154
155. That Is Not An Answer To Q. Ever Hear Of 100% Welds? OMG ......... Steel
disintegrating. OMG I can't believe your choice of words.

Collapse does not cause disintegration of steel.

Better stop the bleeding from your foot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #155
156. Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
Steel did not disintegrate - welds broke. All the other welds for the rest of the structure failed so why not the welds on the core columns? Unless you can prove that the welds on the core columns were somehow different you don't have a leg to stand on.

I don't think 100% weld means indestructible. Welds by their very nature represent a discontinuity in the steel columns - when the column flexes for what ever reason, the stresses are concentrated at the weld and other joints. That is why connections are always the weakest point of any steel structure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-03-06 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #156
158. You Made The Mistake Of Using "Disintegrate". I'm Comprehensive To Free Fa
ll and pulverization the most major events of the day.

You've abandoned the fact and reasonableness by focusing on a weld that will always bend before it breaks in a collapse.

The weld doesn't break, the steel breaks next to the weld after a bend. Shearing forces needed to break without bending are STRICTLY way beyond those encountered in collapse.

You are directly supporting the lie by avoiding the most major factors and, there is no reason to do that unless your agenda is to dispose of the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #32
41. LARED Posts One Big Cognitive Distortion, Leaves Out Free Fall
The amount of dust seen
Posted by LARED


All of this friable material created a massive amount of dust and lightweight debris that was pushed out of the towers as they collapsed.


LARED, ...... hello, you forgot to describe HOW this material created dust. It is dust! Energy must move it.

The dust clouds move horizontally because as each floor pancaked, it compressed the air and vented it sideway. This is one of multiple mechanisms that created and moved the dust clouds.


All that takes time LARED. Remember free fall? And what is the core doing LARED? Gee, you sure leave out a lot.

Even if the towers were rigged with explosives, the dust and energy release generated by the collapse itself would be orders of magnitude larger than any imaginable amount of hidden explosives designed to collapse the tower. To put it crudely the dust created by explosives would be like believing a fart changed the wind direction.


Wow, massive cognitive distortion there when you haven’t yet made an explanation compatable with free fall, which the buiding can't do on its own. How did 2 towers do this simultaneously?

Right, I use free fall, and you haven’t even gotten close. Here is something comprehensive to the event we saw.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=72575&mesg_id=72937
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. Cognitive Distortion, and Free Fall
Why do you continue to state the towers fell at free fall? You know that is proven false.

But those suffering from cognitive dissonance would continue to cling to a disproved notion for a long time so you have an excuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #44
63. Your Unwillingness To Use Information Is Proven Again, 15 Seconds Falling
And both towers did it nearly identically. Distort all you like it does not protect our rights and freedoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Thank you for confirming free fall is a myth
Free fall for the towers is 9.2 seconds. At 15 seconds (the low end estimate for collapse time) you are 63 percent slower than free fall, a significant difference.

Again thanks for using reason and logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #64
72. ERROR: Your Free Fall Figure Is In A Vacuum. No Time Allowed To Crush
I refer to this page ONLY for the free fall calculations. The rest of the information has not yet qualified, probably won't in its entirety.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #72
79. Are you making the case
that free fall times include the time used to crush the building? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. No, That Is The Claim You've Made, But It's In Error. Confusion Your Game
I make the claim that the demolition crushed the building and allowed free fall.

3,000 innocent Americans dead and you work to support lies the murderers hide behind by creating confusion. Sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. If the demolition caused free fall then
the tower should have collapsed far more quickly the the observed time.

BTW, just because I support engineering principles and logic does not mean I support Bush. So cut the crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #82
91. Anti Logic In Your Support For The Lie. Towers Descended Too Fast As Is
Edited on Mon Feb-27-06 07:16 PM by Christophera
and you suggest they should go faster if demoed. The nuke theory has already been debunked because the towers took 10 to 12 seconds to come down. The nuke is too fast for that.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #32
75. LARED's Nonsense, "Compressed The Air And Vented Sideways" Whoa!
Not often that such nonsense is asserted as logic. I find it ludicrious that such a statement is made seriously.

I mean is there some kind of identifying scar or mark we can burn into this dudes forehead so people won't have to post over and over to clarify his erroneous, fictional nonsense?

IF compressed air could tear apart concrete, which it can't, and if windows could hold pressure and allow enough to accumulate and the floors above could hold air pressure while they are crushing floors below ..................... forget it. LARED's nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. So explain this
each floor has at least 500,000 cubic feet of air. As the each floor of the building collapsed. where did the air go? Keep in mind the floor below is going to be relatively intact until the floor above it contacts.

Making an assumption that only 1/2 the volume of air was compressed because of the broken floors about the pressure rises to about 15 psig.

BTW, I strongly encourage you to continue stalking me. Every post is more clear evidence about who understands the collapse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #76
105. You're Fixated On Pancake. No Compression Of Air Ocurred. Explosion Only
You completely ignore the evidence. This is an explosion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
115. Lared - Look up Pyroclastic Flow
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 09:52 PM by simonm
Office furniture, drywall and collapsing concrete are not capable of creating huge amounts of hot pyroclastic flows. I think you knew that.

Understand the term Lared cause that is what will be provided in court as evidence when your leader is tried for War Crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #115
118. You are right - only volcanoes can do that ..
Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow

When I googled it, the first 8 pages dealt with nothing other than volcanoes.

Where does Lared say anything about hot pyroclastic flows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #118
123. Not just volcanoes. Explosives too.
The calliflower shape of the dust clouds is characteristic of pyroclastic flows as seen in the eruption of Mount St. Augustine and also at the WTC in NYC. Massive amounts of explosive energy are required to generate these clouds of rising debris. The heat generated by high-power explosives used in controlled demolitions can approximate the heat of a small eruption. The cold tower steel and concrete simply falling to the ground cannot generate the necessary heat or pulverized concrete dust and debris.

http://www.google.com/search?q=pyroclastic+wtc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #123
124. Looks more like a bunch of CTrs misusing a word ..
considering every site appears to be a 9/11 conspiracy site. Do you have any links to an engineering or scientific site?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #124
125. It is applicable because of the cloud's physical properties
Edited on Wed Mar-01-06 11:17 AM by simonm
Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness

Forward to 1:08:00 for the pyroclastic flow explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #125
128. Sigh...Don't they teach basic physics anymore?
I saw the clip and what they are basically saying is that explosives were needed to provide the energy to the cloud of dust and debris. They seem have to have missed an obvious source of the energy - the collapse itself.

Remember that the WTC towers were basically steel containers filled with gas - the gas of course being air. Each tower contained over 5 million cubic feet of air The basic question to be answered is: what happens to 5 million cubic feet of air when the towers collapsed in about 12 seconds? It had to go somewhere.

The physics are easy and are the basic principle behind heat pumps and air conditioners:

The most important gas law is the ideal gas law, which states that:

P V = n R T

-where

* P is the pressure in atmospheres (atm) or kilopascals (kPa)
* V is the volume in liters
* n is the number of moles of gas
* R is the ideal gas constant in L atm/mol K or Pa m³/mol K
* T is the temperature in kelvins.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws

The basic point from this in regards to the WTC is that as the volume is decreased (ie the air is compressed) both the temperature and pressure go up.

So now lets look at the first complete WTC floor beneath the impact zone. It contained 500,000 cubic feet of air. When the ceiling collapsed the volume of that space went from 500,000 cubic feet to zero in a fraction of a second. What happened to that air? It was violently compressed, increasing both its pressure and temperature. It was then explosively ejected laterally from the building. This happened to every floor as it was flattened.

Now it seems to me that 5 million cubic feet of air violently ejected from a collapsing building is more than enough to recreate the dust clouds we saw on 9/11.

Here is an essay from a 9/11 skeptic that points out that the energy provided by explosives would be minuscule compared to the energy from the gravitational potential energy that each tower contained. I always find it interesting that no 9/11 "researcher" has yet provided any calculations whatsoever to back up their theories. Your video link is no different - just another heap of unsubstantiated opinion with no basis in real physics.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/WTC_AnalysisRussell.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #128
133. Basic Physics, Phd not required
Even if there was no freefall it wouldn't matter. All 3 buildings fell basically with no resistance from the floors below or the steel column supports. There is no other plausible explanation besides a demolishing. Look up Newton's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd law of motion.

Video Example:

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 1:33:28 for example)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #133
135. No .. instead of mindlessly parroting others
why don't you explain why Newton's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd law of motion apply to the WTC?

I have demonstrated a basic understanding of physics - why don't you do the same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #135
139. While your looking up Newton's laws of motion it
Edited on Wed Mar-01-06 09:56 PM by LARED
might be timely to refresh your memory regarding Dalton's law on the partial pressure of gasbags. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #135
146. You Made A Mockery Of Physics Laws By Ignoring Energy Required To
Bring the towers down. So much for your basic integrity to reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #128
140. The compression happened fast enough...
that it probably was also adiabatic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #140
157. Without Thermal Change, What Would Drive Supposed Dust Upward After Fall?
Edited on Thu Mar-02-06 10:16 PM by Christophera
if compressed air was actaully responsible for the dust originally, which is absurd. Such pressure cannot develop behind windows with, sand, gravel, vermiculite, pumice, fly ash and structural steel driving it? We never see a floor pancaking. If a floor has pancaked. what makes the dust above it obscure it? The presentation of the notion says that the dust blowing out is from the floors and walls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #124
129. simonm Refers To Common Knowledge. How Do You Get Away With Pretending
you are so dumb?

We all know what volcanos produce and the dust at the WTC qualifies as similar in every way by simple visual comparison.

Got google? Can you type "volcano" click IMAGE???? = common knowledge. Where'ya been?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. Go away - I am tired of your babbling nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. Can't Have It Both Ways, (actually neither) Free Fall Or Gas Gompression
Add the time to crush all that concrete or roll those 1300 foot steel core columns into little balls so they won't be seen in demo photos. All 47 of them.

You have said that collapsing towers crush everything below them without slowing, while they are doing it they are compressing/heating millions of cubic feet of air (behind windows) that eject steel and concrete debris for 100's of feet, still not slowing, even when encountering the undamaged portion below the plane impacts, all the way to the ground, ............... and that this happened twice, identically, without demolition.

THX for the information hack. Got credibility?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. Didn't you understand my last post? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #132
138. I Know You're Tired And Try To Distort Facts. No Energy Released Until
vast amounts of energy were required to rip the tower apart and throw sand and gravel for hundreds of feet.

Did you read my last post?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #138
147. It's important that you get the last word, isn't it ? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #147
152. Yes, And It Is The Best Thing For Our Futures, Rights And Freedoms
something you never talk about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #152
153. Here's another opportunity nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-03-06 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #153
159. THX, If You Won't Use It. I Will-The Rights Of The 3,000 Dead, Our Loss
Those were our rights too. Our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were trashed. The dead cannot fight for their rights, we the living can, and for good cause. It will protec the rights of our children and all of our futures.

The greater meaning of free speech is found in the listening. Through free speech can be found an understanding, creating; foregiveness, tolerence, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
68. Rude And Working For Someone: We Know About Dust And Velocity Of H.E.
but apparently you don't but do love to make use prove our points over and over while you never prove anything except you work for the lie that hides the murderers of 3,000 innocent, dead Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #68
77. Listen, if you
want to believe the dust was traveling at 20,500 MPH, don't let me get in the way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #77
108. Apparently You Cannot Focus Or Remember, This Issue Is Long Settled
When high explosions occur, everything close around it travels at 30,000 foot per second, for about one second.


Either fundaments such as these are beyond your mental capacity, or, you are ignoring facts to create confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
122. My husband has a masters in engineering
and does not consider that enough to qualify him as an expert on 9-11. People who admit that, despite their education, they are not single handedly qualified to determine what happened on 9-11 are the knowledgeable ones. They are also entitled to their opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #122
141. Out of curiosity...
what is his area?


I also agree that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to accumulate in one lifetime the knowledge necessary to qualify as an expert on the myriad issues of 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #141
144. electrical, which isn't that specific to 9-11, but my point is
everyone has the right to investigate and question this, a degree doesn't really qualify any one person more than the other. Using a degree to qualify oneself as an expert in 911 just makes one sound boorish. Additionally, there are people educated in related matters on both sides of this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #144
145. I don't generally have a problem with questions.
I do have a problem with those who exclude certain answers from the solution set. If there is one thing I have learned (both from my formal education and experience) it is that it pays to be cautious when making claims - absolutes don't come easy in science and engineering. I try to apply that to 9/11 and this forum (although emotion can sometimes get in the way) but I know not everyone has the same philosophy and that frustrates me. I don't consider myself an expert in many things (if anything at all) but when I see people proclaiming (without what appears to be any real consideration) that a particular part of 9/11 violates the laws of physics I get irate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #122
142. Perhaps He Can Use His General Knowledge Of Engineering Steel & Concrete
to critique a site specifically, forensically documenting the concrete core of the Twin Towers.

http://concretecore.741.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Couple of points
Drop the kerosene fire line - no one has ever made that claim. The jet fuel was burned off within a relatively short time (probably 10 minutes or less). In that brief time it did two things:

1. As it was sprayed throughout the large open spaces in the WTC, it ensured that the fires started out covering a very large area.

2. By releasing a massive amount of heat(in the order of megawatts) in a very short time, it ensured that the fires rapidly transition to post-flashover phase and reached full strength with in minutes as the contents of the office spaces ignited.

As posted many times in this forum, there are eyewitness accounts of massive structural damage to WTC 7 - it had a 20 story gouge and one wall was seen to be bulging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #18
39. eyewitness accounts of massive structural damage to WTC 7
Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 12:18 AM by petgoat
Then how come FEMA didn't have access to those accounts?

Also, Brian Clark walked down from 84 right through the fire zone.
He saw only a few flames, stopped at 31 to make phone calls, and
when he hit the street expressed the opinion that "no way" would the
towers fall.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #39
48. After Katrina is there any question that FEMA is incompetent?
Why do you think so highly of their ability? Why do you think NIST was later funded by FEMA to conduct the detailed scientific inquiry into the collapse?

As for Mr Clark, I think you are cherry picking again. If you read his full account it is clear there was a lot of luck involved - he picked the one stairway out of three that was clear. It also happened to be the one furthest away from the impact. Considering that each floor encompassed 40,000 square feet, why is it a surprise that there were areas with no flames? If only half of each floor had fires, that would still result in fires encompassing an area hundreds of thousands of square feet. Those are huge fires.

And again, why was it that the vast majority of deaths were those peoples above the impact zones? If there were no fires to impede them, why was Brian Clark the exception instead of the rule?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. FEMA is incompetent?
Even if that's universally true, the WTC was done jointly with ASCE.

Describing the NIST study as "scientific" is offensive. Their computer models
are truncated in space and time, and assume what they purport to prove.

They postulate temperatures for which they have no evidence except that the
buildings collapsed. Their failure to comment on the destruction of evidence
amounts to an endorsement. They pretend that the FEMA Appendix C steel samples
(which show "evaporation" of steel) don't exist.

As for Mr Clark, I think you are cherry picking again.

Well Chief Orio Palmer and Ron Bucca climbed 78 floors to fight fires, and
picked the same cherry. They radioed to the ground that there were "two isolated
pockets of fire."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/firefighters.htm

And again, why was it that the vast majority of deaths were those peoples above
the impact zones?


Because the stairwells were clogged with sheetrock, and they didn't want to get their
clothes dusty? Because the smoke from smoldering carpets is unpleasant to breathe?
Because the stairwells were dark and wet? Because they thought helicopters would be
sent to the roofs to rescue them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. So, what is the official CT estimate on the size of the fires ..
and what is the science behind it? I suspect that it is nothing more than a wild ass guess on your part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. I suspect that it is nothing more than a wild ass guess
The guess is made on the basis of the evidence:

No photos show blazing infernos.

No witnesses report blazing infernos.

NIST has not one core steel sample demonstrating heating above 250 degrees C.

Pictures show that the fires had burned out.

Witnesses reported that the fires were isolated.

That is the evidence. The NIST report is a fantasy.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. Did you even bother to do any research? Here's one of many links,,,
Spray on Fireproofing
Steel may not burn but will soften and weaken when subjected to intense heat. This is the reason for spray-on fireproofing. The spray-on material may be a portland-cement- or gypsum-based product and can be applied directly to most structural steel columns, beams and decking.

The code intends that the fire-resistive protection for structural members be applied to the individual structural member. The fire-protection for structural steel is in direct relation to a principle known as the "mass effect". The amount of fire-protection depends on the weight of a structural steel member. A heavy, massive structural steel member behaves so that the heat applied to the surface during a fire is absorbed away from the surface, resulting in lower steel surface temperatures. Thus, the insulating thickness indicated by a test or the code, should not be used for members with a smaller weight steel member than that specified in the specific fire test or UBC table.


http://www.nwcb.org/fire.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #10
73. Good Post! You Clearly Have Trashed LAREDS Assertion. VID. Example Great!!
Absolutely correct. Had a plane hit hard enough to damage the building it would sever the core whereupon it would topple. Superficial damage would occur on the side of the building where the piece falls. Done deal. But as you say, the perimeter walls were so strong even that is not quite credible.

Basically, without demolition, the towers would have been on fire for another 3 hours and rescuers would have gotten most out.

A failed demolition. I recognize that kind of laughter from above ground blasting in highly varied/hardness strata.

http://www.vandea.com/sounds/faileddemolition.mov
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. NEW LARED: Do You Say Compressed Air Turned Glass, Concrete Into Dust?
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 02:35 PM by Christophera
You are not the same LARED. Your english sux. Lithos. can you notice this?

Wazza' matta',Has Jane Does debunking hammered the original too much?


Whatever LARED I address, You erroneously assert lightly compressed air can create dust from glass, cellulose, gypsum. vermiculite, fiberglass, and concrete.

What BS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Okee, Dokee (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. ALERT content. DU'ers, CHECK THIS OUT! Moderator Notified!
The below was the content of an alert on 2/26/06





You should notice that LARED is not the same person as they were.

I point it out here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x72575#73043

Notice LAREDS posts in the thread, the language. Not the same person. This thread is targeted for disinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Dude, you're killing me
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 05:24 PM by LARED
What in the world makes you think I am now someone else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. I'm not sure, but
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 07:43 PM by greyl
it could be some of this:

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.
4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
edit: plus this one: 10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

see, "posts by Lared" have been placed into a minimilized and over-generalized category of "Laredness". Any deviation from the faulty categorization is seen not as a fault of the categorization, but as a deviation of the actual entity "Lared".
or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. You definitely could be on to something (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #14
119. SHHHHHHH!!!
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 10:09 PM by simonm
Lared will call for reinforcements (disinfo agents) and label you paranoid. Did you actually believe he spends all his time on DU debunking 9/11 crimes?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
22. You're right - Not Even Bombs Can Do This
- Logic And Reason Shall Prevail

Really you are. Bombs could not have made those images. Neither could explosives attached to critical structural elements for a controlled demolition. There is way too much dust and debris evident to be explained by any thing other than the collapse of the building.

Think of the pictures of controlled demolition. Smallish "squibs" creating small amount of dust as they detonate. Even if there were cutting charges, you would would never see them within the massive amount of debris generated by the collapsing building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. OK LARED 1, LARED 2, Has Bad Grammer. You Have No Good Logic, Brothers
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 07:51 PM by Christophera
of information dissmissal.


A collapse is not possible under these conditions, let alone two identical collapses. The dust is pulverized concrete from explosive detonations. If the steel core columns existed as you fail to assert, within your non argument, the cutting charges would extend shrapnel horizontally 500 feet at 30,000 foot per second, then pieces would continue another 1,500 feet because of the elevations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. LARED 3 = What's the dust made out of?
See here

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF

the cutting charges would extend shrapnel horizontally 500 feet at 30,000 foot per second, then pieces would continue another 1,500 feet because of the elevations.

Just in case you have not considered this, 30,000 feet per second is roughly 20,500 miles per hour. At that speed you could circle the globe in a little over an hour. You might want to reconsider the number as it seems a bit on the high side. Or if you plan on sticking with it maybe you could provide a basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE ALT: We Know What Dust From, Not How It Was Made.
Your ridiculous admission to your alternative poster is noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive#High_Explosives

High Explosives
High explosives are normally employed in mining, demolition, and military warheads. They undergo detonation at rates of 1,000 to 9,000 meters per second. High explosives are conventionally subdivided into two classes differentiated by sensitivity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. You don't seem to know what the dust is from
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 08:51 PM by LARED
Per you

The dust is pulverized concrete from explosive detonations.

But the link I provided does not indicate that to be true. It is much more than just concrete.

This is LARED 2 speaking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #30
42. Dust Old Issue: Analysis Here. How's Tower Free Fall & Take Time To Crush?
Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 02:33 AM by Christophera
In the analysis there a tell tale. Iron bonded to quartz and silica. Lots of it. Concrete surrounding high explosive in close proximity to steel would create a similar particale.

okedokee phoney


Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001

Paul J. Lioy,1,2 Clifford P. Weisel,1,2 James R. Millette,3 Steven Eisenreich,1,4 Daniel Vallero,5 John Offenberg,4 Brian Buckley,1 Barbara Turpin,1,4 Mianhua Zhong,6 Mitchell D. Cohen,6 Colette Prophete,6 Ill Yang,1 Robert Stiles,1 Glen Chee,6 Willie Johnson,1 Robert Porcja,1,4 Shahnaz Alimokhtari,1 Robert C. Hale,7 Charles Weschler,1 and Lung Chi Chen6

1Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute of New Jersey, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 2Department of Environmental and Community Medicine, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 3MVA, Norcross, Georgia; 4Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 5National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA; 6Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; 7Department of Environmental Sciences, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester, Virginia, USA

* Introduction
* Methods
* Results
* Discussion
* Conclusions
Abstract

The explosion and collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) was a catastrophic event that produced an aerosol plume impacting many workers, residents, and commuters during the first few days after 11 September 2001. Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001; these samples are representative of the generated material that settled immediately after the explosion and fire and the concurrent collapse of the two structures. We analyzed each sample, not differentiated by particle size, for inorganic and organic composition. In the inorganic analyses, we identified metals, radionuclides, ionic species, asbestos, and inorganic species. In the organic analyses, we identified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, pesticides, phthalate esters, brominated diphenyl ethers, and other hydrocarbons. Each sample had a basic pH. Asbestos levels ranged from 0.8% to 3.0% of the mass, the PAHs were > 0.1% of the mass, and lead ranged from 101 to 625 µg/g. The content and distribution of material was indicative of a complex mixture of building debris and combustion products in the resulting plume. These three samples were composed primarily of construction materials, soot, paint (leaded and unleaded), and glass fibers (mineral wool and fiberglass). Levels of hydrocarbons indicated unburned or partially burned jet fuel, plastic, cellulose, and other materials that were ignited by the fire. In morphologic analyses we found that a majority of the mass was fibrous and composed of many types of fibers (e.g., mineral wool, fiberglass, asbestos, wood, paper, and cotton). The particles were separated into size classifications by gravimetric and aerodynamic methods. Material < 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter was 0.88-1.98% of the total mass. The largest mass concentrations were > 53 µm in diameter. The results obtained from these samples can be used to understand the contact and types of exposures to this unprecedented complex mixture experienced by the surviving residents, commuters, and rescue workers directly affected by the plume from 11 to 12 September and the evaluations of any acute or long-term health effects from resuspendable dust and smoke to the residents, commuters, and local workers, as well as from the materials released after 11 September until the fires were extinguished. Further, these results support the need to have the interior of residences, buildings, and their respective HVAC systems professionally cleaned to reduce long-term residential risks before rehabitation. Key words: aerosol, inorganic components, morphologic characterization, organic components, World Trade Center. Environ Health Perspect 110:703-714 (2002).

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/110p703-714lioy/ abstract.html

Address correspondence to P.J. Lioy, Exposure Measurement and Assessment Division, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, 170 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8020 USA. Telephone: (732) 445 0150. Fax: (732) 445 0116. E-mail: plioy@eohsi.rutgers.edu

We thank D. Bates and his analytic team in the U.S. EPA's Kansas City Regional Laboratory for their analysis of the dust for dioxins and furans. We also thank C. Schopfer of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) for completion of the radionuclide analyses; R. Harrington for analytic support, and M.J. La Guardia of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science for technical assistance. We extend our gratitude to D. Owuor for assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. Finally, we express our deepest sympathy and continuing concern for the families of the victims, and survivors of 11 September 2001.

This work was funded in part by supplemental funds from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to the NIEHS Centers at EOHSI (ES05022-12) and the NYU Institute of Medicine (ES00260). NYU is also funded in part by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) PM Center Grant (R827351). P.J. Lioy was also supported in part by a U.S. EPA University Partnership (CR827033).

This work has been subjected to agency review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use.

Received 15 January 2002; accepted 8 April 2002.

Introduction
The 11 September 2001 attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City (NYC) resulted in an intense fire and the subsequent complete collapse of the two main structures and adjacent buildings. It also led to significant damage to many surrounding buildings within and around the WTC complex. The 16-acre area has become known as Ground Zero. A consequence of the pulverization of buildings and the fires was the development of a large plume of dust and smoke that released both particles and gases into the atmosphere. The initial plume impacted all directions immediately adjacent to the WTC site, and the dust and smoke settled at many outdoor and indoor locations. From the first hours to 18 hr after the collapse, the winds transported the plume to the east (Figure 1) and then to the southeast across and beyond Brooklyn, New York.


Figure 1. The WTC dust and smoke plume moving east on 11 September 2001.

To begin assessing the exposure to dust and smoke among the residential and commuter population during the first few days, samples of particles that initially settled in downtown NYC were taken from three un-disturbed protected locations to the east of the WTC site. Two samples were taken on day 5 (16 September 2001) and the third sample was taken on day 6 (17 September 2001) after the terrorist attack. The purposes for collecting the samples were a) to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material that was present in the dust and smoke that settled from the initial plume, and b) to determine the absence or presence of contaminants that could affect acute or long-term human health by inhalation or ingestion. It was anticipated that the actual compounds and materials present in the plume would be similar to those found in building fires or implosion of collapsed buildings. The primary differences would be the simultaneous occurrence of each type of event, the intense fire (> 1,000°C), the extremely large mass of material (> 10 106 tons) reduced to dust and smoke, and the previously unseen degree of pulverization of the building materials. A summary of the potentially present types of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic materials was reported in EHP in November 2001 (1).

The dust and smoke would be inhaled by individuals either directly or after the settled aerosol was resuspended by turbulence. Deposition and retention of the dust and smoke on surfaces inside homes, as well as the residuals of dust and smoke remaining if residences and building ventilation systems were not properly cleaned before rehabitation, would be available for uptake by children and adults via nondietary ingestion. Indoor inhalation exposures would also be possible because of resuspension from the ventilation system. Any large-particle inhalation could also lead to ingestion exposure after particles are cleared from the upper airways of the lung by mucocilliary clearance processes.

A number of initial measurements made by various organizations focused on the general composition of the dust and smoke, with a primary concern being asbestos (1). The approach we used for analyzing the three dust and smoke samples included detailed measurement of the inorganic and organic components of the mass and a general characterization of the percent distribution by mass or volume of various materials present in each sample.

Samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at three different locations. The first sample was collected from protected external ledges around the entrance of a building on Cortlandt Street, which is one block east of the WTC building complex. The initial direction of the plume was from west to east (Figure 1); thus, the other two samples were collected at locations to the east of Cortlandt Street. These two samples were collected from 10-15 cm-thick deposits that were on the top of two automobiles about 0.7 km from the WTC site. The automobiles were in locations protected from rain that occurred on Friday, 15 September 2001. One automobile was located on Cherry Street, and the other was on Market Street, one and two city blocks, respectively, west of the East River between the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges. These cars appeared to have been in their respective locations since 11 September, but it is possible that each could have been moved from an adjacent thoroughfare on the east side of NYC (FDR Drive).

One of the reasons for collecting samples from these locations was to determine whether chemical composition and physical morphology of the particles changed with distance from the WTC site. The samples were collected using the protocols established for surface soil collection in our studies of the dispersal of chromium-laden hazardous waste in Jersey City, New Jersey (2), and the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (3). After collection, all samples were stored in a 4°C room prior to sending the subfractions to individual laboratories for analysis. We maintained chain of custody throughout sample transferal and analyses.

Methods

Approach

The analyses conducted on each sample were based on the nature of the sources of the particles that were aerosolized on 11 September 2001. The force of the collapse pulverized the two main WTC structures and several adjacent low-rise buildings (e.g., WTC3, WTC7); therefore, our analytic plan included qualitative and quantitative analyses to detect construction and furnishing debris, and combustible materials and products of incomplete combustion associated with the fires in each building. We accomplished the tasks by completing analyses to identify inorganic and organic constituents.

We designed the first sets of analyses to provide a general characterization of the content of the samples using a combination of microscopic techniques. This provided an opportunity to classify the general morphology and to focus the chemical analyses subsequently performed on each sample based on the types of materials detected by the microscopic analyses. The second type of analyses included the inorganic analyses (including trace and toxic elements, ionic species, and functional groups) and the organic analyses . All of these analyses were performed exclusively on the total of bulk samples.

The third set of analyses included the particle size fractionation experiments on each sample. We used two different approaches: a) a gravimetric sieving analysis that separated the mass of lint and nonfibrous material into fractions > 300 µm, 75-300 µm, and < 75 µm in diameter; and b) an aerodynamic separation for the particle size fractions of < 2.5 µm, 2.5-10 µm, and 10-53 µm in diameter, with a gravimetric sieving that separated the particles > 53 µm in diameter before the aerodynamic sizing of the samples. The separations were based on the design or availability of specific size separation techniques in the laboratories.

We selected all of the analyses described above for the three bulk samples based on the nature of the events and the materials that could be associated with the buildings and the burning jet fuel. The collapse resulted in a pulverization of the buildings. Thus, it was important to complete morphologic analyses to obtain a general idea about the composition and the structure of the particles that were produced from the building materials. We conducted the organic analyses to determine the chemical nature of the products of incomplete combustion produced by the fires and to identify any other organic materials. The inorganic analyses were completed to obtain quantitative information on the levels of various heavy metals and other inorganic materials present in the pulverized building materials and in the fire. Finally, we conducted the particle size analyses to provide a general description of the types and levels of material available that could be inhaled and deposited in various locations within the lung. These size-separated samples were stored for analyses of the same compounds in the individual size fractions. These results are the subject of future manuscripts.

Analytic Methods

Because each of the total mass dust and smoke samples was determined to contain a complex mixture of materials, the analytic plan required the inclusion of a number of different techniques for examining chemical and physical characteristics. Our approach included microscopic analysis to identify major components and the morphology of particles in each sample. Using stereomicroscopy, we estimated relative percentages of larger particles and identified large dust components. We used polarized light microscopy with microchemical testing to identify most particles including minerals, building products, and hair and fibers > 1 µm in diameter. We used scanning electron microscopy with X-ray elemental analysis to identify metal fragments, building product pieces, and other particles < 1 µm. Transmission electron microscopy, with electron diffraction and X-ray elemental analysis was used to identify the smallest fraction of particles including single asbestos fibrils and carbon soot.

We extracted the portions of each total mass sample (not differentiated by particles size) for determination of trace and toxic elements by inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy; ion chromatography was used to determine the ionic and cationic components of the mass. Other portions of each total mass sample were then extracted and analyzed for organic constituents. We included materials that are typically measured in air or dust samples by gas chromatographic and mass spectrometric techniques; we then scanned for unknown extracts using other mass spectroscopic analyses. Other analyses completed on these total mass samples included the measurement of pH, corrosion, aerodynamic particle size for fine and coarse particle fractions, percentage of mass by particle sieving, general radiation levels, and asbestos. Details on each analysis conducted on the three dust and smoke samples are provided below.

Morphologic and gravimetric analyses. The dust samples were characterized by both gravimetric measurement of sieved size fractions and by polarized light microscopy analyses. The samples were sieved using standard 4-inch diameter brass sieves (U.S. Standard Sieve Mesh 50 and 200) as reported previously (4). The gravimetric determinations were made in triplicate with a SETRA EZ2-500 electronic 3-place balance (Setra Systems, Inc., Boxborough, MA). All sample-handling activities were performed inside a hood with a HEPA exhaust filter. Samples were separated into fibrous (lint) and nonfibrous fractions using tweezers under the stereomicroscope. Indoor dust has been shown to be composed of both fibrous and nonfibrous fractions (5). The fibrous and nonfibrous parts are expected to respond differently to dust disruptions, which include cleaning procedures.

We determined the weight of the lint (plus attached fine nonfibrous particulate). The remaining particulate was then dry sieved at the following size fractions: > 300 µm (collected on Mesh 50), 75-300 µm (collected on Mesh 200), < 75 µm (through Mesh 200). The weight of each fraction was determined and the relative weight percentages were then calculated. The lint fraction is found in the large (> 300 µm) fraction. The fractions were combined and examined by stereomicroscopy using a Zeiss Stemi 2000 stereomicroscope (Carl Zeiss, Inc., Thornwood, NY) with a magnification range of 6.5 to 47. The physical characteristics of the samples were then analyzed using an Olympus BH-2 polarized light microscope (Olympus America, Inc., Melville, NY) with a magnification range of 40 to 1,000. A visual estimate was made of the relative percentage by volume of loosely aggregated separable fibrous lint (hair + natural fibers + manmade fibers).

Each sample was characterized morphologically for major constituents using a form developed by MVA (4,6). Identified constituents were then rated as to whether it was "common" (consistently found throughout the sample) or "present" (detected but infrequently) (7-11). This designation does not necessarily indicate the relative abundance of a constituent by weight or volume within a sample; it is an indictor of numerical abundance of a constituent. The < 75 µm size fraction portion was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), which was performed using a JEOL 6400 (JEOL Inc., Peabody, MA) equipped with a Noran Voyager energy dispersive X-ray analysis unit (Noran Instruments, Inc., Middleton, WI) and both the secondary and backscattered modes. For SEM analysis, portions of the particles from the sample were transferred to conductive carbon tape and coated with a thin layer of carbon to provide a conductive surface in the electron microscope. Using the backscattered electron mode, the sample was examined for particles that contained heavy elements. This procedure is useful in locating particles containing toxic metals such as lead and cadmium. Using the secondary electron mode, the sample was examined for particles that were consistent with asbestos fibers. We performed X-ray elemental analysis (energy dispersive spectrometry) on each particle located for further study by either the backscattered electron or secondary electron scans. We prepared the < 75 µm size fraction of the samples following the ASTM D6602 procedure (6) and analyzed them with analytic electron microscopy using a JEOL 1200, 100 kV scanning transmission electron microscope equipped with a Noran energy dispersive spectrometry X-ray analysis system. Each sample was subjected to morphologic and gravimetric analyses.

Aerodynamic particle separation. The samples were first mechanically separated using a sieve with a mesh size of 53 µm. The fraction of particles < 53 µm was further separated aerodynamically into three size fractions: 10-53 µm, 2.5-10 µm, and < 2.5 µm. Particles were resuspended by a jet of filtered air passing through an inlet (Wedding Inlet, 10 µm cut size; Anderson Instrument Co., Fultonville, NY) before entering a cyclone with a cut size of 2.5 µm (BGI, Inc., Waltham, MA). Particles between 10 and 2.5 µm were collected by the cyclone, whereas particles < 2.5 µm, which penetrated through the cyclone, were collected on Teflon filters.

Corrosion. We evaluated the corrosive properties of the dust samples using copper mirrors. For each dust sample, a small amount was sprinkled onto a copper mirror and a second copper mirror was set aside as a control; hence, there were a total of three exposed mirrors and three controls. These six mirrors were placed in a sealed container together with a beaker of water to maintain the relative humidity near 100%. After a 14-day exposure, the samples were examined for pinholes and discoloration.

Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT). The MDA for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD). When placed in the liquid scintillation fluid, the WTC samples are somewhat darker than the backgrounds and calibration standard, which may cause slight underreporting of the beta activity due to quenching and standard-to-sample efficiency bias.

Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis for trace and toxic elements. All samples were analyzed in duplicate for trace or toxic elements. Approximately 0.1 g of sample was accurately weighed and placed in a CEM HP500 microwave vessel (CEM Corporation, Matthews, NC). Fisher optima concentrated nitric acid (10 mL) was then added to the vessels. The six sample vessels plus those of two method blanks were sealed and placed in the CEM MARS microwave unit at 1,200 watts for 5 min. The samples were allowed to cool for approximately 15 min inside the MARS unit and were then removed and placed in the cold room for 1 hr at 4°C. After cooling, the samples were then diluted to 50 mL. A 2-mL aliquot was then diluted to 8 mL for a final acid concentration of 5%.

We scanned the samples for metals on a Fissons PQ3 ICP/MS (Fissons Instruments, Inc., Merrimac, MA) over a mass range of 9-238 at 1,350 watts, with a dwell time of 1,000 µsec with 40 sweeps for a total acquisition time of 70 sec. We used high purity multielement standard and NIST A&B calibrant for quality control. Acceptable quality assurance checks were deemed to be 100 ± 20% of the certified values.

Ion chromatography for ionic species and pH analyses. We weighed the samples (Fisher Scientific XT Balance; Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA) and placed them in test tubes; aliquots of distilled, deionized water were added to make a concentration of approximately 30 mg/mL. The tubes were inverted several times and were then sonicated. The samples were left at room temperature for several days before centrifugation. The extract from each filter sample was removed to a new test tube before centrifugation. All samples were centrifuged and the supernatant was removed to new tubes and stored in the refrigerator.

A 1-mL aliquot of extract was used for pH measurement. This was performed using an Orion Research Digital pH Meter 611 (Dionex Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA). The ion analysis was performed using a Dionex DX500 system. The anion analyses column-IonPac AS14 (Dionex) was used in Suppressor-ASRS Ultra-AutoSuppressor Recycle Mode. The eluent was 3.5 mM Na2CO3/1.0mM NaHCO3. We used cation analyses column IonPac CS12A in the Suppressor-CSRS II Ultra-AutoSuppressor Recycle Mode. The eluent was 20 mM methanesulfonic acid.

We constructed calibration curves using seven standards prepared by diluting a NIST-traceable standard (Fisher) using Milli-Q water. Each standard was subsequently run as a sample to verify the calibration curve. Samples were run once the calibration curve was verified. After all samples were analyzed, these seven standards were analyzed again, followed by two additional NIST traceable stock standards (Dionex). Samples that were originally off scale were diluted with Milli-Q water and tested again.

Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometry. Each sample was analyzed for functional groups by FTIR after a portion of the sample was converted to a standard infrared pellet. The pellet was made by combining a small quantity of sample dust material (~ 30 mg) and approximately 200 mg of spectrograde potassium bromide powder (ICL Laboratories, Garfield, NJ). This mixture was preliminarily ground together using an agate motor and pestle, then transferred to a metal vial and placed in a mixing mill (SPEX Model 5300; SPEX Industries, Edison, NJ) and agitated for 30 sec at approximately 50 cycles/sec. The resultant homogeneous mixture was then transferred to a die (13 mm Macro-Micro KBr pellet die; ICL Laboratories) connected to a vacuum pump, which was placed in a lab press. Approximately 8,500 psi was applied to the mixture for 30 secs. The resulting infrared pellet consisted of a mid-infrared transparent solid matrix of potassium bromide containing a uniform distribution of the dust sample to be analyzed.

We obtained all infrared spectra using an FTIR Spectrometer (Mattson Instruments, Madison, WI) (12). The spectrometer was configured to obtain standard transmission FTIR spectra using a deuterated triglycine sulfate detector. Each spectrum collected was an average of 200 scans at 4/cm resolution. The resulting profile was illustrated as a plot of percent transmittance of infrared radiation as a function of wave number from 4,000 to 450/cm. The transmission spectra of the three samples were then examined for functional group content.

Volatile organic compounds. We used thermal desorption (Perkin-Elmer ATD400; Perkin-Elmer, Norwalk, CT) with a gas chromatograph (GC)/MS detector (Hewlett Packard 5890/5971; Hewlett Packard, Wilmington, DE) to analyze samples of dust from the destruction of the World Trade Center complex for volatile organic compounds. Approximately 200 mg of each of the three samples were heated at 180°C for 1 min in a stainless steel tube with the emitted compounds transferred in a helium stream to a Tenax absorbent trap (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA) held at -28°C. The absorbent trap was heated to 250°C within a few seconds, with the compounds transferred to a capillary GC/MS. Full scan mass spectra were collected above 30 atomic mass units (amu) to identify the volatile compounds.

The chromatographic peaks were identified based on comparisons to standards run under the same conditions as the samples, evaluation of the mass spectral pattern, and library matches within the Wiley Mass Spectra Library (The Wiley/NBS Registry of Mass Spectral Data). Due to the unresolved background present in the chromatograph after a retention time of 20 min, we performed a background subtraction of an area near each peak of interest before the library search.

Semivolatile organic chemical analysis. Many of the compounds or compound classes measured for semivolatile organics were analyzed by well-established techniques for PAHs, PCBs, dioxins, and furans. However, because the fire at the WTC was very complex and included the burning of fuel, plastics, furniture, and other materials, we conducted additional analyses to detect and quantify unknown organics in the total mass samples. These are described below.

Standard PAH, chlordane, and PCB analyses. Each sample was analyzed by GC/MS on a Hewlett Packard 6890/5973 for 40 individual PAHs and six chlordane species (oxy-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-chlordane, trans-nonachlor, cis-nonachlor, and MC5), and by GC/electron capture detection with a Hewlett Packard 6890 equipped with a 63Ni electron capture detector for quantification of 68 PCB congeners, hexachlorobenzene, DDTs (4,4´-DDE, 2,4´-DDT, and 4,4´-DDT), and mirex (13,14). By weighing triplicate aliquots of approximately 0.7 g of each dust sample, ultrasonically extracting each in 30 mL dichloromethane, and reducing the volume before analysis, we identified and quantified all compounds against known concentrations of authentic standards and NIST Standard Reference Material 1649a (Urban Dust, Organics) (15), which was processed in parallel with each sample for comparison and verification of the results.

Unknown semivolatile hydrocarbon identification. The analysis for semivolatile organic compounds included microwave-assisted solvent extraction (MASE) followed by GC/ion trap mass spectrometer (ITMS) (16,17). MASE was carried out using an MDS-2000 microwave extraction system (CEM) equipped with an inboard pressure control system. The MDS-2000 is able to extract 12 samples simultaneously in Teflon PFA-lined extraction vessels under approximately the same conditions of temperature and pressure. A 2.5-g portion of each sample was accurately weighed and quantitatively transferred into Teflon PFA-lined extraction vessels of the MDS-2000. We added extraction solvents (7.5 mL methylene chloride-acetone; 1:1 v/v) to each vessel and fitted new rupture membranes into each cap, which screwed onto the vessel. We then placed the vessels symmetrically on the microwave turntable. After the extraction was completed, the vessels were allowed to cool before the caps were opened. After cooling, we transferred 1.5 mL extract from the supernatant of the vessels into GC vials without a preconcentration step before GC/ITMS analysis.

We performed GC/MS on a Varian 3400 CX GC coupled to a Saturn 2000 GC/MS ITMS (Varian Instruments, Palo Alto, CA). A septum programmable split/splitless injector was used in the splitless mode. The GC was equipped with a 30-m 5% phenyl/95% dimethylsilicone fused silica DB-XLB capillary column with 0.32 mm i.d. and 0.25 µm film thickness (J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA).

The ITMS was operated in electron ionization-positive mode and optimized with perfluorotributylamine (FC-34) using automatic gain control. The electron multiplier, emission current, and modulation amplitude were set at 1,800 V, 10 µA, and 7.5 V, respectively. The transfer line and the ion trap manifold were set to 270°C and 225°C, respectively. The mass range scanned was from 45 to 450 m/z at 0.3-0.6 sec/scan. We used Saturn GC/MS workstation version 5.3 software for data acquisition.

We identified the analytes by comparing the mass spectrum (after background subtraction) to the vendor's library and NIST 98 library spectrum. As with the identification of other unknowns, we defined a positive identification as one with a correlation to the library spectrum of > 85% fit. We added EPA 525 internal standards (Supelco) to the sample run as quality control checks for rough quantitation and retention time quality control. A secondary identification was performed using retention time confirmation with quality control standards, when available. We analyzed a 1-µL aliquot of standard with the GC/ITMS system under the same conditions used for samples and quality control samples. Approximately 300 semivolatile organic compound standards including EPA 525, 625, and 8270 standards (Supelco) were injected to build the GC retention time library. We defined a retention time match as an analyte compound eluting within ± 5 sec of the standard sample retention time. All reported compounds met these criteria.

Polychlorinated dioxins (PCDDs) and furans (PCDFs). We used U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Methods 1613 and RCRA SW846 Method 8290 for dioxin analyses (18,19). In these methods, a clean extraction thimble was charged with 5.0 g of 100/200-mesh silica topped with 100 g of quartz sand. The silica layer was left undisturbed throughout the extraction process. The thimble was placed in a clean extractor with 30-40 mL of toluene in the receiver and 200-250 mL of toluene in the flask. The wet sample, filter, and/or disk were loaded and any nonaqueous liquid removed. The remaining sample was placed in the thimble and manually mixed into the sand layer with a clean metal spatula, carefully breaking up any large lumps of sample.

The dust and smoke extracts, which were blown to dryness in conical vials and refrigerated, were analyzed via GC/high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC/HRMS) after the addition of an internal standard and nonane. We programmed the column temperature to separate the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener from other TCDD analytes. The tetra congeners had to be eluted from the column after 20 min for this to occur. The seventeen congeners of interest were then detected with the HRMS. We identified compounds eluting from the GC column by the retention time reference obtained from the corresponding labeled isotope and the ion ratio of the measured ions during selective ion response. We calculated the concentration of each congener by using the relative response factors of each native congener to its respective 13C12-labeled congener.

Standards used in the analyses were concentration of stock and spiking solutions containing PCDDs/PCDFs and labeled compounds. We included a cleanup standard (Cl4, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 0.8 ng/mL) and internal standards (Cl2, 1,2,3,4-TCDD, 200 ng/mL; and Cl2, 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexaCDD, 200 ng/mL).

Brominated diphenyl ethers. The analytic methodology for detecting brominated diphenyls and diphenyl ethers have been described previously (20). Briefly, we subjected total dust samples to enhanced solvent extraction using methylene chloride. Extracts were purified by size exclusion and silica gel liquid chromatography. Compound quantification was performed by GC with halogen-selective electrolytic conductivity detection with multipoint calibration. Decachlorodiphenyl ether was used as an internal standard. 2,2´,4,4´,5,6´,6´-Octachlorobiphenyl was added before extraction as a surrogate standard, and results were corrected for its recovery (mean ± SD, 68.1 ± 2.02). We confirmed compound identities by GC/MS in the full scan electron ionization mode. None of the target compounds were detected in the blank.

Results
The general characteristics of each total settled dust and smoke sample are shown in Table 1; these characteristics indicate that the composition of major components in each sample were similar, with slight differences in total composition for the Market Street sample. Generally, the samples were very light and fluffy, and were white to pinkish-gray. The general physical appearance of the Market Street sample is shown in Figure 2 as an example. The mass of each sample was dominated by nonfibrous material and construction debris, and the Cortlandt and Cherry Street samples contained approximately 0.8% asbestos. In contrast, of the mass collected, the Market Street sample contained 3.0% asbestos. We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.




Figure 2. The general appearance of the bulk dust collected at the Market Street location east of the WTC site. Dust samples from the other two sites were similar in appearance. Magnification = 4.

The pH of an aqueous suspension of each sample was > 7; the Cortlandt Street sample had a pH of 11.5. Both the Cherry and Market Street samples had a pH of ~9 (Table 1). Significant amounts (~10% of the mass) of cellulose were found in all three samples. This observation is consistent with the release of large amounts of disintegrated paper and other products that were originally part of the indoor work environments. We detected no differences between the exposed copper mirrors and the controls, indicating that these dust samples were not corrosive toward base metals. This finding is consistent with the pH measurements.

Morphologic analyses. Detailed morphologic analyses of each sample supported the general characterizations presented in Table 1.

Cortlandt Street sample. The Cortlandt Street sample was mainly composed of construction debris , quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and glass shards. Chrysotile asbestos fibers were estimated to comprise < 1% of the sample by volume, and much of the chrysotile adhered to carbonate binder. Some skin cells and dyed cotton fibers were present (5,21-23). The findings of skin cells was consistent with the types of particles usually found in dust in the indoor environment.


Figure 3. Appearance of lead from the Cortlandt Street sample.

Approximately 35% of the volume of the sample was in the form of loosely consolidated clumps of fibrous lint, of which the greatest portion was glass fibers. An example of the typical form of the glass fibers is shown in Figure 4. In many cases the width was 1 µm (to > 10 µm), and the length ranged from 5 to 100 µm. The fiber shown in Figure 4 is not a "clean" glass fiber; other materials are agglomerated along the rod. This is typical of features noted for many different types of particles in each sample. The SEM analysis of the fraction < 75 µm in diameter revealed many glass fibers and cement particles, some in a fibrous form containing calcium, silicon, and sulfur, and some particles were composed of calcium carbonate (Figure 5).


Figure 4. Glass fiber detected in the Market Street sample.


Figure 5. Coarse calcium carbonate particle detected in the Cortlandt Street sample.

Chrysotile asbestos fibers, identified by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), were found in the < 75-µm fraction. None of the analyzed particles contained lead, chromium, cadmium, or mercury, although chromium and cadmium were quantified in this sample by ICP/MS analyses.

Cherry Avenue sample. The Cherry Avenue sample is mainly composed of construction debris (including cement, vermiculite, plaster, synthetic foam, glass fragments, mineral wool fibers, paint particles, glass fibers, metals, calcite grains, and paper fragments), quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and metal flakes. We estimated that chrysotile asbestos fibers comprised < 1% of the sample by volume. Much of the chrysotile asbestos had carbonate binder adhered to it. We observed some hair fibers and tarry fragments in the sample. Approximately 10% of the volume of the sample was in the form of loosely consolidated clumps of fibrous lint, of which the greatest portion was glass fibers. The SEM analysis of the fraction < 75 µm in diameter revealed many glass fibers and cement particles, some in a fibrous form, containing calcium, silicon, and sulfur.

We used SEM and TEM to examine chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments, iron-chromium particles, and soot particles found in the < 75-µm fraction. The soot particles were in the submicron size range (Figure 6). No particles containing cadmium (detected by ICP/MS) or mercury were found at less than minimum detection limits in the 1,000 particles analyzed from this sample.


Figure 6. A soot particle containing coagulated ultra-fine particles detected in the Cherry Street sample.

Market Street sample. The Market Street sample was also composed of construction debris (including vermiculite, plaster, synthetic foam, glass fragments, paint particles, mineral wool fibers, glass fibers, calcite grains, and paper fragments), quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and metal flakes. Chrysotile asbestos fibers made up < 1% of the sample by volume, and much of the chrysotile adhered to carbonate binder. This result is different from the bulk mass results, which indicated 3.0% asbestos; this indicates that the sample was not homogeneous. Some dyed cotton fibers, tarry fragments, pollen grains, and metal flakes were also present. Approximately 10% of the volume of the sample was in the form of loosely consolidated clumps of fibrous lint, of which the greatest portion was glass fibers. The SEM analysis of the fraction < 75 µm in diameter revealed many glass fibers and cement particles, some in a fibrous form containing calcium, silicon, and sulfur.

Chrysotile asbestos fibers, identified by TEM, were found in the fine fraction. We found no particles containing lead, chromium, cadmium, or mercury in the single particles analyzed from the Market Street sample, although all but mercury were detected by the ICP/MS analyses.

The morphologic differences between each of the collected samples were minor and could be attributed to the fact that we analyzed only 1,000 particles per sample. This limitation in particle number would preclude consistent detection of all materials that comprise < 0.1% of each sample.

A minor difference between the Cortlandt Street and the Market and Cherry Street samples was that the Cortlandt Street sample had 0.88% fine particles (particles < 2.5 µm in diameter), while the other two samples had > 1.1% fine particle mass. Using microscopic analysis to generally describe the distribution of materials among the mass fractions, we found that large particles were primarily made up of building materials including gypsum, glass fiber, mineral wool fibers, wood fibers, and paper fragments. Chrysotile adhered to building material, chrysotile bundles, and plaster were also components of large particles. This is consistent with the fact that the lint with fibrous particle bundles was in the > 300-µm particle size range.


The smaller particles (< 75 µm in diameter) included asbestos, soot, lead, and other trace elements. This is consistent with the dual nature of the event--the collapse of two buildings overlaying intensely burning structures--which would result primarily in individual and population exposures to large particles and in much lower exposures to fine particles. However, the large amounts of material in the air during the first 2 days could lead to high exposures within unprotected individuals.

Inorganic and metals. The concentrations of elements found in the samples are shown in Table 2, which provides values for an array of elements detectable by ICP/MS. The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The very high levels of titanium (> 0.1%) were due to their presence in paint, especially white paint. The lead levels are elevated due to the use of lead-based paint on metallic surfaces during construction of the building. The detected lead dust concentrations were lower than would be found outdoors in older cities affected by tailpipe emissions from leaded gasoline (24). The lead levels, however, could not be discounted in concerns about exposure. Because of the large mass of material deposited within rehabitable buildings throughout lower Manhattan, surface loading could enhance potential nondietary exposures (25). In contrast, mercury was not at quantifiable levels, and the concentrations of arsenic and cadmium were relatively low, but in the micrograms/gram (parts per million) concentration range.

In addition to the elements quantified by ICP/MS analyses, the SEM dispersive X-ray analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium, which are major components of construction materials. Similar observations were found for silicon, which is consistent with the glass fragments and fiberglass found in each sample. FTIR functional group analysis detected a signal that is indicative of calcium sulfate dihydrate, a component of gypsum board, and calcium carbonate, which is extensively used as filler for many materials. Other SEM analyses found signals of trace elements, which are indicative of fiberglass and other nonorganic fibers, especially asbestos fiber.

We found detectable levels of typical anionic and cationic species that are usually measured in aerosol samples (ion chromatography results shown in Table 1). We found chloride and sulfate in all samples. The Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Street samples had sulfate levels of 41,400, 35,200, and 42,100 ng/g, respectively, which probably were formed in the fires. We also detected calcium in the nanograms per gram concentration range; this is probably a result of the pulverization of building materials, with Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets having values of 18,200, 14,000, and 17,000 ng/g, respectively. The high calcium levels are consistent with the FTIR and morphologic analyses. A major difference between these samples was that Cortlandt Street had approximately three times the levels of both fluoride and chloride as the other streets.

PAHs. In the morphologic analyses, we found that the particles < 75 µm in diameter were gray. Thus, we focused the analyses on products of incomplete combustion as well as other organic species. The results for PAHs are shown in Tables 3 and 4. For the three dust and smoke samples, which were undifferentiated by particle size, the total concentrations of 40 typical PAHs with higher molecular weights were in excess of 200-300 µg/g. The distribution of the 40 PAH compounds are shown in Figure 7, with levels of individual PAHs ranging from hundreds of nanograms per gram to > 40 µg/g. Benzopyrene ranged from 12 to 24 µg/g, with the highest values detected at Cortlandt Street. The values for phenanthrene ranged from 22 to 44 µg/g, with the highest value also detected at the Cortlandt Street.









Figure 7. PAH concentrations measured in the Cortlandt, Market, and Cherry Street samples . Mephens + Meanthrs, methylphenanthrenes + methlyanthracenes.

We found other PAHs in each sample (Table 4); for example, 7H-benzofluorene and 11H-benzofluorene were found in the Market Street sample, with values of 39 ppm and 33 µg/g, respectively. Additional PAHs were detected in the Cortlandt and Cherry Street samples, although these samples had a much less diverse mix of additional PAHs and neither had detectable levels of the two compounds mentioned above. For example, the Cortlandt Street sample had two methylated phenanthrene compounds at concentrations < 10 µg/g. If we add the quantifiable PAHs in each sample, the total PAHs in the settled dust and smoke was > 0.1% of the mass.

The highest concentrations of the 40 specific PAHs reported in Table 4 and Figure 7 were found in the Cortlandt Street sample. This is logical because it was the site closest to the fire after the collapse; however, a larger variety of other PAHs at concentrations > 10 µg/g were found in the Market samples. The intense and uncontrolled fire(s) would be expected to burn at different temperatures, and the homogeneity of the material that burned would lead to a variety of unburned or partially burned hydrocarbons. These were derived from burning plastics, metals, woods, synthetic products, and other materials; using morphologic analyses, we found charred wood particles in all three samples.

Other organic compounds. A significant product of incomplete combustion found in all three samples was the class of contaminants called phthalate esters; as shown in Table 4, the levels were > 10 µg/g for specific compounds. The total level of detectable phthalate esters in the Market Street sample was > 100 µg/g. Hydrocarbons identified and shown in Figure 8 indicated the presence of a fuel, which in this case was associated with the approximately 91,000 L of unburned or burning jet fuel that cascaded down each building after the explosions and during the collapse of each tower. Results of all three samples showed an unresolved envelope of high boiling hydrocarbons of 10 carbons or greater and had individual compound peaks superimposed on the envelope (Figure 8). The mass spectrum of the unresolved envelope was consistent with saturated hydrocarbon chains (masses separated by 14 amu starting at 43 amu) and naphthalene ring structure (128 amu). All samples also showed major peaks of the lightest PAHs (naphthalene, substituted naphthalene, acenaphthalene, and fluorene), which were consistent with the presence of products of combustion and the quantitative results reported in Tables 3 and 4. The alkane peaks were much more pronounced and distinct in the sample collected farthest to the east of Ground Zero (0.7 km; Market Street) (Figure 8). The alkanes detected were the same as those found in uncombusted fuel. Jet fuel is composed of a mixture of saturated hydrocarbons (representing > 50% of the total fuel) and aromatic hydrocarbons (26). Paraffins and cycloparaffins in the C9-C16 range dominate the composition. Gas chromatograms of the vapor phase of jet fuel show both the unresolved envelope and individual hydrocarbon peaks of the straight chain pariffins observed in the thermal desorption profile from the collected dust sample (27). The additional peaks identified within the dust samples represent PAHs that resulted from the incomplete combustion of the building material, the jet fuel from the planes after the explosion and fire, and the collapse of both of the World Trade Center towers. The results suggest that particles transported away from the site during the initial conflagration contained a mixture of combustion products and jet fuel. Thus, residents downwind during the initial hours would have been exposed to particles from construction debris, products of incomplete combustion, and some coated with jet fuel. Other materials could have shown similar patterns, but the large amount of jet fuel released during the crashes would have overwhelmed contributions from other materials such as fuel oil and other petroleum-based products.



Figure 8. GC/MS analysis of the Market Street sample and the compounds detected that are components of jet fuel.

The levels of PCBs and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-diozins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) were in the nanograms per gram and picograms per gram range as shown in Tables 3 and 5, respectively. Thus, the situation yielded detectable, but not excessive, levels of these categories of environmental contaminants. The toxic equivalent values for PCDDs and PCDFs in dust (approximately 100 ng/kg) in this study were consistent with those of dust sampled directly from the pile (maximum total equivalents of about 300 ng/kg) (28). Neither our study nor the U.S. EPA found PCDD levels in dust above background (29). The levels of polybrominated biphenyls and brominated diphenyl ethers (BDEs) were also determined (Table 6) and were similar to levels found in sewage sludge (30). The penta-mixture (BDE-47, BDE-99, and BDE-100) is used in flame retardants for polyurethane foam, which is common as padding in office furniture. The highest concentration was for BDE-209, which is present in thermoplastics (e.g., computers). However, the large volume of material present would lead to significant ambient levels of polybrominated biphenyls, BDEs, and other materials during the first day after the attack on the WTC. We found no concentrations above background for the pesticide chlordane.






Discussion
The composition of each sample collected from the three locations east of the WTC site were complex because of the dual nature of the released aerosol and the magnitude of the event. The aerosol that was released and deposited on surfaces downwind of the complex included pulverized building debris and products of incomplete combustion produced by the explosion that ignited the thousands of liters of jet fuel. The mass of material deposited was extremely high and, in many indoor locations, the deposited particle loadings were 1-3 cm thick (Figure 9). In outdoor situations, the dust and smoke loadings sometimes reached a thickness of > 10 cm. Thus, on the first and second days after the attack on the WTC, > 70% of the mass was associated with construction materials, including pulverized cement, wallboard, and office furnishings, which included a large percentage by weight of glass fiber. A small percentage of the carcinogen asbestos was found in these samples (~0.8% by volume), although some individual samples yielded higher levels. The products of incomplete combustion were produced by the intense fire that consumed many materials in the buildings (e.g., furnishings, equipment, debris, wiring, metal, wood, etc.). PAHs, products of incomplete combustion, were present in the samples at levels of 5 µg/g to hundreds of micrograms per gram. Concentrations of the individual compounds (e.g., benzo
pyrene) were > 20 µg/g, and the total mass of PAHs present were in excess of 0.1% of the mass. When placed in the context of the vast amounts of other materials present in the air during the first day after the collapse and fires, these levels were high and could lead to significant short-term inhalation exposure. In fact, based on the PAH results obtained from air samples after 25 September, the types of PAHs released into the atmosphere at that time were similar to the PAHs detected in the settled dust and smoke samples collected during the first week after the collapse and fires (29). The levels of PCDDs and PCDFs were similar to those found in other studies (29), but the levels of 2,2´,4,4´,5,5´-hexabromobiphenyl were higher than those found in sludge, which is likely due to its use during the construction of the WTC in the 1970s (30). The concentrations of lead ranged from 100 to > 600 ppm; these concentrations are not very high compared to the levels found in typical urban soils. However, the actual levels of dust and smoke deposited in individual buildings and businesses need to be assessed for cleanup based on the actual surface loading of lead and asbestos. A systematic effort will be required to properly clean indoor locations in order to eliminate persistent levels of lead, asbestos, and other hazardous materials on surfaces and in the air ducts that service each residence or building (air ducts can be a reservoir of material that could be released into the indoor air if not properly cleaned).


Figure 9. Indoor deposition of dust and smoke released by the collapse of the WTC on 11 September 2001.

The high pH of the samples was probably caused by cement and other basic materials associated with construction debris in the deposited particles. This factor, along with the presence of long and thin glass fibers (nonasbestos) and attached agglomerated fine particles, must be considered when evaluating the initial lung irritations reported by residents and workers in the initial days and weeks after the collapse of the WTC buildings. The rain on 15 September and especially the heavy rains that fell on 24 September washed away much of the material from outdoor surfaces. However, because of the extremely dry weather pattern in the Northeast during fall 2001, dust still remained on some outdoor surfaces and rooftops through November. The WTC site itself was continually sprayed with water to keep the resuspendable dust levels down during recovery operations. The persistence of significant levels of the initial dust and smoke into the late fall were also associated with indoor locations, including buildings that had open ventilation systems or open windows at the time of the collapse, or had windows blown out during the collapse. The quantities of settled and resuspendable dust and smoke are of concern indoors. WTC dust and smoke could lead to health impacts if the toxic constituents present on the indoor surfaces are not cleaned properly and if the HVAC system of each structure is not concurrently cleaned, or cleaned before the cleanup of the indoor surfaces and reentry into the residence or office. The U.S. EPA and other organizations have repeatedly recommended using methods for removal of hazardous materials in residences and offices before rehabitation. This approach to cleanup is necessary to ensure that rehabitation clearance values are achieved for contaminants such as lead (i.e., 40 µg/ft2 on floors) (31).

Some types of material that were released are similar to materials that we are exposed to during our daily lives. At a minimum, however, extraordinarily high quantities of coarse and fine particles were released and dispersed after the WTC collapse; future analysis is needed on the health consequences of the exposure among commuters, workers, and residents. The differences in the three samples that we analyzed suggest that there were inhomogenities among aerosol materials released on 11 September and during the subsequent weeks. This is expected because of the large amounts of different materials present in each of the collapsed and burning structures.

The outdoor cleanup of the initially deposited material began days after the attack and continued for several months. The indoor cleanup activities have proceeded more slowly. Eventually, estimates of human exposure to the materials characterized in these three bulk samples will be made. In addition, the results for composition and particle size, with and without agglomerates on glass fiber and other fibrous particles, will be used in assessments of short-term and long-term effects among various populations including sensitive subgroups. The people potentially exposed to the initially suspended dust and smoke, or subsequently settled dust and smoke, would include unprotected rescue workers, residents, and workers in downtown Manhattan immediately after and in the first few weeks after the collapse. The settled dust and smoke could be resuspended and expose unprotected residential cleanup workers and workers and residents in poorly or inefficiently cleaned buildings for weeks to months after 11 September. Finally, the levels of exposure encountered will have to be placed into context with the materials that have been released from the diminishing smoldering fires that continued to burn until 14 December 2001.

Conclusions
The analyses of the three settled dust samples collected from areas downwind of the collapsed WTC have provided information that is valuable in assessing exposures of workers and residents to related dusts. These exposures have occurred during resuspension of such dusts, both outdoors and indoors, in the course of rescue, cleanup, and routine day-to-day activities. The vast majority of the mass was pulverized building and construction materials including cement, cellulose, and glass fibers. However, the fires produced aerosol particles that contained products of incomplete combustion. Toxicants with significant concentrations or potential surface loadings included asbestos, glass fibers, lead, and PAHs. Further, many of these particles had much smaller particles agglomerated on the surface. The identification of these major components is important for assessing acute inhalation of resuspendable dust and smoke, or direct inhalation during the first week after the attack. Because the material also settled indoors, if indoor locations are not cleaned properly, there is a potential for long-term inhalation contact or ingestion contact.

The types of PAHs detected in these initial samples are similar to the PAHs detected in air samples 3 weeks after the attack. The fires continued at Ground Zero until 14 December 2001, resulting in the need for longer exposure characterization for products of incomplete combustion. The levels of dioxin and PCBs are similar to those found in the general environment.



References and Notes

1. Claudio L. Environmental aftermath. Environ Health Perspect 109:A528-A537 (2001).

2. Kitsa V, Lioy PJ, Chow JC, Watson JG, Shupack S, Howell T, Sanders P. Particle size distribution of chromium--total and hexavalent chromium in inspirable and respirable soil particles from contaminated sites in New Jersey. Aerosol Sci Technol 17:213-229 (1992).

3. Pellizzari E, Lioy PJ, Quackenboss J, Whitmore R, Clayton A, Freeman N, Waldman J, Thomas K, Rodes C, Wilcosky T. The design and implementation of phase I national human exposure assessment study in EPA Region V. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 5:327-358 (1995).

4. Millette JR, Hopen TJ. Characterizing household dirt. In: Proceedings of the Second NSF International Conference on Indoor Air Health, 29-31 January 2001, Miami, FL. Ann Arbor, MI:NSF International, 2001;174-183.

5. Lioy PJ, Freeman NCG, Millette JR. Dust: a metric for use in residential and building exposure assessment, and source characterization. Environ Health Perspect (in press).

6. ASTM. Standard Practice for Sampling and Testing of Possible Carbon Black Fugitive Emissions or Other Environmental Particulate, or Both. ASTM D6602-00. West Conshohocken, PA:American Society for Testing and Materials, 2001.

7. Behrens JW. A Guide for the Microscopial Investigation of Vegetable Substances. Boston, MA:SE Cassino and Co, 1985.

8. Kerr PF. Optical Mineralogy. 4th ed. New York:McGraw Hill, 1977.

9. McCrone WC, Delly JG. The Particle Atlas. 2nd ed. Ann Harbor, MI:Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1973.

10. Gard JA. The Electron-Optical Investigation of Clays. Mineralogical Society, Monograph 3. London:Mineralogical Society, 1971.

11. Basu S, Millette JR, eds. Electron Microscopy in Forensic, Occupational, and Environmental Health Sciences, New York:Plenum Press, 1986.

12. Blando JD, Porcia RJ, Li T-H, Bowman D, Lioy PJ, Turpin, BJ. Secondary formation and Smokey Mountain organic aerosol: an examination of aerosol polarity and functional group composition during SEAVS. Environ Sci Technol 32:604-613 (1998).

13. Offenberg JH, Baker JE. Aerosol size distributions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban and over-water atmospheres. Environ Sci Technol 33:3324-3331 (1999).

14. Brunciak PA, Dachs J, Gigliotti CL, Nelson ED, Eisenreich SJ. Atmospheric polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations and apparent degradation in coastal New Jersey. Atmos Environ 35:3325-3339 (2001).

15. Wise SA, Schantz MM, Hays MJ, Koster BJ, Sharpless KS, Sander LC, Benner BA, Schiller SB. Certification of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in mussel tissue and air particulate - Standard Reference Materials (SRMs). Ploycyclic Aromatic Compounds 9:209-216 (1996).

16. Haffer M, Yang I, Buckley B. GC/Ion trap mass spectrometry for semi-volatile organics monitoring in drinking water sources, fish tissue and sediments, same instrument different songs. In: Book of Abstracts Presented at PITTCON 1999, 7-12 March 1999, Orlando, FL. Pittsburgh:Pittsburgh Conference, 1999;999.

17. Haffer M, Yang I, Cashman K, Buckley B. An improved microwave extraction method for the analysis of semi-volatile organic compounds extracted from soils and sediments using GC/ITMS and GC/ITMSMS. In: Book of Abstracts Presented at PITTCON 2000, March 12-17, 2000, New Orleans, LA. Pittsburgh:Pittsburgh Conference, 2000;1255.

18. U.S. EPA Method 1613. Tetra- Through octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope Dilution HRGC/HRMS (Rev. B). Washington, DC:U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, 1994.

19. U.S. EPA. RCRA SW846 Method 8290. Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) by High Resolution Gas Chromatograph/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS). Washington, DC:U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, 1994.

20. Hale RC, LaGuardia MJ, Harvey EP, Mainor TM, Duff WH, Gaylor MO. Polybrominated dipenyl ether flame retardants in Virginia freshwater fishes (USA). Environ Sci Technol 35:4585-4591 (2001).

21. Gyntelberg F, Suadincani P, Nielson JW, Skov P. Dust and the sick building syndrome. Indoor Air 4(4):223-238 (1994).

22. Millette JR. Early studies characterizing household dirt. Microscope 49(4):201-208 (2001).

23. Molhave L, Schneider T, Kjaergaard SK, Larsen L, Norn S, Jorgensen O. House dust in seven Danish offices. Atmos Environ 34:4767-4779 (2000).

24. Lioy PJ, Yiin LM, Adgate J, Weisel C, Rhoads GG. The effectiveness of home cleaning intervention strategy in reducing potential dust and lead exposures. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 8:17-35 (1998).

25. Lioy PJ. Measurement methods for human exposure analysis. Environ Health Perspect 103(suppl 3):35-43 (1995).

26.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. Your link doesn't work.


(get it?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. Iron bonded to quartz and silica is not indicated
Where is that found?

No where.

Concrete surrounding high explosive in close proximity to steel would create a similar particle.

Really? Mind explaining how you determined that. I realize this bonded particle was not found in the article, but exactly how does iron bound to silica or quartz to create a particle? Is it a chemical bond? An agglomerate? A wish?

Why not step into the light and admit the dust analysis does not indicate the dust as all concrete. Nor is there any evidence of explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #47
54. Back Up Dust Link. Now You Produce Evidence. Explain Free Fall.
From the data I posted earlier.

In addition to the elements quantified by ICP/MS analyses, the SEM dispersive X-ray analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium, which are major components of construction materials.


From another source.

As to studies of the special chemical and physical properties of the
dust, one of the most interesting is here:
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

Here's an interesting quote from it "WTC Dust Markers exhibit
characteristics of particles that have undergone high
stress and high temperture... Lead was present as ultra-fine spherical
particles. Some particles show evidence of
having been exposed to a conflageration, such as spherical metals and
silicates, and vesticular structures (round open
porous structures having a swiss cheese structure as a result of boiling
and evaporation)."

The article gives some other examples of these formations, some even
suggesting passing temperatures high enough
to vaporize metal(!)...which in turned condensed as a toxic coating on
some of the dust. Not all of the dust was
especially hot though, it's more this condensed metal coating on some of
it that gives the extremely high temperature
event away.

The article also discusses a very high pressure wave accompanying the
expanding dust cloud, which injected in the
toxic dust into every nook and cranny of the building accross the
street, into computers and other electronic
machinery and so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #54
60. For the perhaps fiftieth time, there was no free fall
Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 02:45 PM by LARED
so there is nothing to explain. The towers collapsed well outside of free falls speeds. At least 50% to 100% longer than freefall.

Also if anyone can follow your point about the dust please email me and I will provide a prize
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #60
65. I've Seen Abundant Proof Of Free Fall. Explain It, Don't Try To Make It Go
away.

You have seen the proof too, but you don't use evidence so that won't matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. You have ZERO proof of free fall
for the towers. Who do you think your kidding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Can You Count To 10?-Free Fall-Links To 2 Videos Of WTC 1 Coming Down
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #71
78. Why do you direct me to videos that so show collapse times
that are well over 10 seconds?

You don't even need to count as the video provides a clock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #78
110. Small Differences Of No Consequence. Towers Fell Too Fast. Collapse Of T
his nature is not possible. Collapse looks different, very different.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #60
83. YOUR DECEPTIVE PRESENCE: Issues LARED Cannot Reasonably Address
LARED,

Your deceptive, manipulating practice of re - presenting facts erroneously with distortions and omissions is an abomination.

So far you have tried to distort the following facts and failed:

The velocity of high explosives and shrapnel

The quality of dust

The rate of descent and free fall of the towers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. He didn't fail at all.
Based on the 'conversation' in this thread and the desperate tactic of accusing your opponent of doing what you are doing, it looks like you've failed.

You made the mistake of linking to videos that disprove your freefall position. It's not Lared's fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #84
97. Notice You Provide No Proof. Event Close Enough To Free Fall For Us
that is if you are an American seeking to protect the principles of the republic, our rights and freedoms.

There really is too much debris on the ground to tell when the falling stops and the settling starts. Whatever, that is not the issue. The issue is that what we saw is impossible outside a very narrow set of conditions.

When laws are violated in capitol crimes, we must give the benefit of doubt, for practical purposes otherwise we enable secret murder. Is that what you want to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #97
98. Obfuscation.
We were talking about the "proof" that you entered into evidence.

"There really is too much debris on the ground to tell when the falling stops and the settling starts. Whatever, that is not the issue."

'Scuse me? Your entire "freefall" theory rests on how long it took for the building to collapse.
Remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #98
100. Issue Is Murder Of Americans Under Color Of Authority-Don't Forget It
Free fall is a basic observation. Technically we cannot say exactly. What we saw is close enough BECAUSE 3,000 Americans were murdered and the authority failed to administer due process.

Maybe you would rather let them get away with it. Sure sounds that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #84
101. If You Can't Count To 10, If You Don't Care About Murdered Americans
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 12:18 PM by Christophera
the least you could do is use evidence rather than just spewing your nonsense.

Consider this. If material travelled 400 feet upward at any time in the demolition, then that value must be added to the over all height.



We see particulates traveling upward about that much. To a degree, this happened all the way down. Making the height of the towers that MUST be used in calculations much taller than the tower actually was.


Accordingly, the towers fell much faster than freefall




LARED forgets that there were non friable items in the towers and assumes dust came from them. Murders of Americans do not matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=72575&mesg_id=73430



LARED asserts that the dust if from compressed air.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=72575&mesg_id=73305



LARED asserts that particulate not traveling at speed of explosion that caused it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=72575&mesg_id=73147
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #101
136. Never forget - Murdering has not stopped
Edited on Wed Mar-01-06 09:11 PM by simonm
Those caught in the cloud are most likely to die from the contamination or have permanent illnesses. The fallout itself has already claimed many lives after 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I

How can Lared live with himself when he intentionally deceives others here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #136
137. No problems at all
Sorry you feel intentionally deceived. But I can only shed some light, I can't force people to inform themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #84
102. Apparently You Approve Of Juvenile Conversatation & No Evidence
greyl posts this referring to LARED

He didn't fail at all.
Posted by greyl

Based on the 'conversation' in this thread and the desperate tactic of accusing your opponent of doing what you are doing, it looks like you've failed.

You made the mistake of linking to videos that disprove your freefall position. It's not Lared'





Below is a post title I made earlier.

NEW LARED: Do You Say Compressed Air Turned Glass, Concrete Into Dust?


Here is LARED's response.

Okee, Dokee (n/t)



From this we can ascertain that your opinions are not worth the k-bytes they consume on this board, or about the same value as LAREDs nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. For my own sanity and time management issues,
I'm placing you on ignore.
Best of luck to ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. Ha ,add me too please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #103
109. Thats's Better Than Dealing With The Facts. Americans Killed In Demolitio
n depend on you to use the truth to protect their loved ones, what do you do? Ignore them, make their deaths totally meaningless. Or only used by the murderers to justify war on more innocent people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #83
88. re - presenting facts erroneously with distortions and omissions
The irony is most amusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-03-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #88
160. Here Is An Error And Distortion You Presented As Fact
You used the free fall time in a vacuum to try and show that the towers did not at free fall speeds. All the while ignoring a host of conlusive facts showing demolition.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=72575&mesg_id=73199
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #60
126. Freefall or not it doesn't matter
Edited on Wed Mar-01-06 12:26 PM by simonm
The building fell without resistance from the lower floors or steel support columns. Look up Newton's 1st, 2nd and 3rd law of motion.

You know this. Why do you intentionally deceive others?

Here is a video that anyone can watch and judge for themselves.

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 1:12:51 for the freefall example)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. Absolutely Right On! WHY The Continued Deception?
And you are right simonm, he knows this. In fact, his arguments here have been defeated in every thread he's ever raised them, but he keeps bringing them back. Must be well paid or have other interests.

He seems to never assert anything but the official story and always works to dismiss the information that actually explains events. Occasionally he takes on a normal appearance by discussion on subjects of little or no consequence to the events, or getting the public to notice the incongruent aspects of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Regarding detonation rates
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 10:57 PM by LARED
Yes, the high velocities you cite in fact is the thing that defines a gas expansion as an explosion verses some other definition. But you have failed to explain how this detonation rate creates shrapnel at 20,000 miles per hour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #33
40. Dust/Particulate Mostly Concrete-Shrapnel Carried In Gasses-You Phoney
The dust analysis is one thing, the photos show a lot more than dust, phoney. They photos in the original post show gravel traveling close to 30,000 FPS.

Then they show it on the ground.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. They photos in the original post show gravel traveling close to 30,000 FPS
Please explain how you determined that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #45
58. Use Logic & Reason. 30,000 FPS Is APROX. Speed Of Gasses.
Concrete Disintegrated By Those Gasses Will Be propelled by them


Logic and reason show that the particals will have the same speed as the gasses propelling them, for a short time, until they slow down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. No, if you were approximating you would use a number
Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 02:46 PM by LARED
between 1000 and 9000 m/s. Numbers you provided as speeds where we see explosive expansion of gases. You approximated by using the highest number (9000 m/s)

Also, how would you estimate the length of time those particles travel at the detonation speed? A rather critical element to your statement that the shrapnel traveled at 30,000 ft/sec.

LARED #1 checking in
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. Yes, Gas At 30k FPS, So Is Shrapnel At First, Particulate too, Then Slows
logically.

The length of time varies, the longer time, the further they travel. Check the hard debris field. I remember photos of the street over a block away and there were chunks of concrete and gravel lying around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #66
80. chunks of concrete ????????????
How could that be? I thought all the concrete was pulverized. Yuo said so yourself.

So how long did the particles travel at 20,500 MPH? What's you best guess????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #80
92. You Do All Or Nothing Thinking, Not I
I know a great deal of concrete was pulverized into fine powder, not all of it.

Best guess 40 feet, but to see them doing half that speed twice that distance out means they were initially going much faster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #92
150. "total pulverization"
Posted by Christophera:
Free fall, total pulverization, utterly impossible within a collapse. The collapse lie has been proven wrong, forever, with the last sentence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=62533&mesg_id=62884

What does "total pulverization" mean? Not all of it was pulverized?

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. As a side note
easy on the criticism of my grammar, This is a on-line forum, not an English class.

You also might want to hold your grammar skills up to a mirror for a hard look, as you are not exactly an easy read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
46. You aren't a member of al queda, are you? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #46
62. Get Serious. None Of The Above Would Ever Share What I Do.
Let Us Talk About Rights, Freedoms & Our Constitution

You can’t be serious. Are you that confused? It’s not like I’m a LARED, okeedokee one day then mister master distortion the next, never saying what he really believes always saying he doesn't beleive what you believe, and tries to do it without proof even after his opposition provides evidence and ration thought. I read between the lines and see consistency, or the lack of it in others.

Let me provide an opportunity for you to show you are capable of consistentcy or integrity to reason. Let’s prove to one another that we are genuine

I can’t speak for you, but I’m here to protect our rights and freedoms and I see that the letter of the law is the best way to do that. Government has failed to recognize, follow and uphold law and as soon as that happened they basically lost all power, but there are those Americans who cannot see that fact and by default allow government power it legitimately cannot hold.

I’m going to prove that I’m exactly what I say I am and none of the groups you might suggest I’ of would ever even pretend to say, or perhaps be capable of saying what I’m going to say. Then if you cannot agree, I’ll expect you to do the same in a similarly logical and comprehensive fashion, or, loose your credibility.


I believe that we NEED our rights and freedoms to meet our needs, and fulfill our wants which includes being able to protect ourselves from what is feared.
Our lives ultimately will depend on our rights and freedoms. When I say ours, I mean you and I and our children, and their children's children. I believe there are historical social contracts that are basically designed to do this and from them are laws are extrapolated into laws.

The Magna Carta, The Declaration Of Indepedence and The United States Constitution are the contracts that WILL do this for us if we agree to see they are upheld.

We are people of a democratically controlled republic and the principles of the republic are ideally seen in the operation of the government, and if they are not, the government or the principles can be adjusted democratically in time.

Free speech has a sacred meaning, and through its use we find that meaning;

Free speech can create an understanding, and from that understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love; all protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The preceding is the FULL understanding that the Native Americans had of free speech.

Do you understand and accept the above? Do you understand what I’m trying to do with this philosophical rant?


To underline the above and how important it is as a perspective I link to a web site I’ve made that I believe offers a strategy that will be functional from a grass roots perspective. I don’t just talk about these things, I do them.

http://algoxy.com/psych/optimize_for_peace.html

Here is some of my background, if you wonder.

I actually have studied high explosives, high density and low density, there applications, effects and application. Only individuals who are licensed may handle the material, so I’ve never actually touched more than the detonator wires, but I’ve drilled a lot of holes for blasters and studied the handbook as well as other data specific to demolition. Over the years I’ve spoken with ex military people who were very experienced and learned quite a lot.

I am a welder, uncertified, but capable of producing x-ray quality welds. I operate equipment occasionally, grading, demo, excavations, but mostly I work as a surveyor/designer/draftsman with a small engineering firm which puts me in contact with lots of concrete, or plans for it, staking it out.

Now, are you as real as I am? Or are you the companion of the unaccountable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. I think I need to explain "okeedokee"
Do not take that as an expression of agreement with what you post.

It is something I do with my adult and semi-adult children when they are debating an issue with me and it is obvious that it is pointless to respond to them as their argument is not based on logic and reason. They know when I tell them OkeeDokee, it's the end of the conversation.

Sort of like your statement about collapsing floors compressing 500,000 cubic feet of gas to nothing in a few fractions of a second as causing a slight pressurization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC