The 9/11 Forum

henryco:

I have used a quadrupole MS and a magnetic sector MS. You cannot reliably use a quadrupole MS for isotope ratios because of interferences between atomic ions of mass M and molecular ions of mass MH, MH2, MO, MO2, MOH, etc, etc. For example, an ion at mass 88 could be Sr-88, but it could also be FeO2. However, the precise mass of Sr-88 is 87.9056 amu, while FeO2 is 87.9247 amu. You need a magnetic sector instrument to resolve that!

There were many witnesses of fireballs, explosions and flashes of light before the towers collapsed.
So i wanted to test the hypothesis that powerful electric discharges were used to trigger explosives whatever these are, and/or thermitic (not necessarily explosive) reactions and/or something else.
Barium titanate and Strontium titanate are commonly used for their piezzoelectric or dielectric properties in capacitors and the very powerful discharge of such capacitors were may be used to generate sparks (or even fireballs as in thunderstorms). This is my privileged approach, trying to understand the unexpectedly high concentration of strontium and also baryum in WTC dust. Indeed the mean concentration of strontium in WTC dust is 378ppm which is huge for this element as compared to the mean concentration of this element in soils from the eastern US (reported in pink color on the last page in http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0050-02/fs-050-02_508.pdf)
and its concentration even reached as much as 3670 ppm at one place: WTC01-16. See detailed tables here:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-042 ... table.html
Notice that the concentrations of Baryum and Strontium closely follow each other: they are both low or both high in a given dust sample so they probably have a common origin.

In order to test the hypothesis that barium and strontium titanates were used in capacitors and submitted to very powerful electric discharges i'm looking for ... isotopic anomalies in these elements ! You might be perplexed by such a strange method but you shouldnt because very significant isotopic anomalies were commonly observed (but unexplained) in the residues from Titanium foils disintegrated by very powerful electric discharges in the RECOM experiments. For instance you can have a look at the first pages in http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf but dont mind the theoretical part of the article: such phenomena are not theoretically understood but the results are there: very significant and reproducible (even recently by a french team) isotopic anomalies associated with the observations of fireballs and what they have called "strange tracks" and they belong to a variety of enigmatic phenomena which seem to indicate Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.
I dont expect easily detectable isotopic anomalies in titanium because there is a known dominant source for titanium at the WTC not related to the hypothesis i wanted to test here.

I have just received the isotopic analysis results i asked, from a lab in France: results for Sr, Ba and Ti. After subtraction of interference effects the Ti results dont show any anomaly however the Ba and Sr have very significant anomalies (up to 30 standard deviations from the expected natural abundances). This is a particularly clean signal for Sr and there are no possible interference systematic errors from other mono-atoms.
The results:
84Sr : 0,47+-0.01 % : - 0.09+-0.01 % compared to natural abundancy
86Sr : 9,37+-0.03 % : - 0.49+-0.03 % ...
87Sr : 7,00+-0.09 % OK
88Sr : 83,16+-0.05 % : + 0.58+-0.05 % ...

95% confidence level on the uncertainties

130Ba : 0,099+-0.008 % OK
132Ba : 0,105+-0.008 % OK
134Ba : 2,41+-0.01 % OK
135Ba : 6,55+-0.05 % OK
136Ba : 7,84+-0.02 % OK
137Ba : 11,3+-0.02 % : + 0.07+-0.02 % compared to natural abundancy
138Ba : 7,00+-0.09 % OK

By the way i could also check that my sample have the expected (close to the USGS ones) chemical concentrations for Ti, Ba, Sr (this also confirmed by another lab: genuine wtc dust for sure).
Remember also that there were many very enigmatic observations at the WTC for instance molten metal for weeks and i know about no chemical reaction that could explain that while remanant heat phenomena are commonly observed in LENR experiments.
Here is a very recent report by the DIA:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/ ... 11-003.pdf
which may convince you that the US militaries take this field of research serious.

The LENR phenomena though they involve the nucleus are not governed by well understood nuclear physics. Since it is presently not understood physics, it's beyond the competence of everybody. For instance it's well known that LENR do not generate radioactivity. If they used it to destroy the towers neither did they have to understand it theoretically: they could have developped explosive devices purely empirically and i believe it can be one important part of the operation: using physics that no expert in the world will be able to identify: the nuclear power without radioactivity!

The common denominator of all LENR phenomena according to me is that they are triggered by electric discharges (even in the electrolysis experiments there are electric micro-discharges inside the palladium microstructure). These electric discharges sometimes generate lightingballs as in thunderstorms.
It's not theoretically understood how the electromagnetic energy can be concentrated and stabilized during seconds of the lifetime of a 10cm diameter lightingball for instance (radiation pressure should make the fireball very instable) but experimentalist have succeeded to reproduce at least very similar objects in the lab. These lighting balls have various sizes: from tens of centimeters sizes and seconds lifetime to micro lightingballs with microseconds lifetimes which are generated by micro discharges and detected as what the searchers have called "strange tracks" , "ectons" , "micro lightingballs" or "EVs" (various names because discovered independently by many teams).

Energy in excess and isotopic anomalies seem to be generated inside these enigmatic objects which either disappear explosively or evaporate progressively. It has also been noted that at the surface of these objects there is an almost perfect discontinuity of the temperature: from at least thousands of degrees (but probably much more) inside to the ambiant temperature outside.

There is an alternative theory of gravity ( my extension of General Relativity: gr-qc/0610079) which predicts the occurence of discontinuities of the gravitational fields (and i believe an extension of the theoretical framework would naturally also lead to discontinuities of the electromagnetic field ). These are not the kind of topological defects that one can generate in General Relativity. They must arise because my construction rehabilitates genuine discrete space-time symmetries.

I almost (quite tricky) predict that a concentration of charges (there appears to be a charge density threshold) produced locally at the impact of an electric discharge can produce a spherical discontinuity able to behave as a very deep and discontinuous potential well inside which matter and its energy can be trapped (but light can escape). The particles able to get other the potential barrier escape the object but loose most of their energy ==> temperature discontinuity.
The evaporation rate relative to its mass, thus the lifetime of the object is proportionnal to the radius R of the object (just because mass varies as R^3 and surface for matter-energy exchanges as R^2).

I predict crazy (really nuclear energies) temperatures can appear inside a spherical discontinuity (because the ddp implied by the discontinuity is huge) thus some lightingballs could be considered as genuine miniature stars : all fusion processes allowed but fast neutrons almost impossible to detect because efficiently cooled down when escaping the lighting ball (temperature discontinuity).

Again No radioactivity is produced by LENR phenomena. But if you dont like LENR remember that there are aneutronic nuclear fusion phenomena at billion degrees temperatures such as bore hydrogen fusion : totally clean! Pure nuclear Fusion is generally speaking very clean as compared to nuclear fission : only high levels of tritium can allow you detect it : there was only one study concerning tritium at WTC but why should i trust them ?
Remember also that these guys have a 700 billion dollars budget/year so its not very daring to suspect that they are working on "out of this world" physics.

One of my preferred hypothesis for 911:

After the first LENR experiments, the US militaries mediatically discretited this field of research and at the same time intensively and secretely studied it in their labs. Then they empirically discovered that microlighting balls produced by powerful electric discharges could generate locally huge temperatures inside them : above the billion degrees.Then they could use them to trigger bore-hydrogen nuclear weapon at the WTC: a perfectly clean nuclear technology: no radioactivity nor tritium.

The Z- machine is their current experimental program to really understand theoretically this physics: and they indeed reached billion degrees in their plasma generated by powerful electric discharges here on a much greater volume than at WTC where the volume did not matter to trigger the Bore - Hydrogen nuclear chain reaction.

Extracted from wikipedia Z-machine:

"At the beginning of 2006, the Z machine produced plasmas with announced temperatures in excess of 2 billion kelvin (2 GK, 2×109 K) or 3.6 billion °F, even reaching a peak at 3.7 GK or 6.6 billion °F.[6][7][8] It was achieved in part by replacing the tungsten wires with thicker steel wires. This temperature, which enables a 10% to 15% efficiency in converting electrical energy to soft x-rays, was much higher than anticipated (3 to 4 times the kinetic energy of the incoming wires on axis). Thus far, it is currently the highest human-made temperature ever achieved according to The Guinness Book Of Records. The origin of this extra energy still remains unexplained....."

F H-C

Message to everyone still having some wtc dust : have it analyzed (isotopic analysis) by a lab in your country or foreign country and publish the results : eventually this will also allow the resistance to identify which labs are under control. We dont have much time.

henryco:

Strontium and barium are normal, well-documented impurities in commercial gypsum wallboard. I have data on this somewhere ....

Your isotopic data are actually very close to natural abundance as far as I can see, except for Ba-138, which looks like a typo and should be ~ 71 %, not 7 %, to add up to 100 %.

And by the way, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions are really not all that mysterious, .... they are generally explained by electron screening effects so that the Coulomb barrier is reduced. They are very interesting as are claims that the fracture of certain metals can induce nuclear reactions. However, I see no reason to believe or postulate that LENR occurred in the Twin Towers.

Dr G

You are right that i cannot exclude interference effects from FeO2 for instance.
Polyatomic ions ArTi (Argon from the ICP-MS itself) could interfere with most of the Sr isotopes and explain the anomalies.
Since i have no access to a more accurate apparatus (it would also be prohibitively too expensive for me) this is the end of the story...

Fred

Henryco:

I used to have access to a Cameca ion-microprobe magnetic sector instrument, (made in France, no less!), but alas no more for me too.....

Engineers experts from the lab i contacted to have my ICP-MS analysis dont take serious the Strontium isotopic anomalies in my sample because they say that they cannot exclude (as Dr G says and as i was ready to believe yesterday because the ICP-MS resolution is not better than one atomic mass) polyatomic interferences which according to them are responsible for the observed deviations from natural abundancies. Let me recall them:

84Sr : 0,47+-0.01 % ==> - 0.09+-0.01 % when compared to this isotope natural abundancy
86Sr : 9,37+-0.03 % ==> - 0.49+-0.03 % ...
87Sr : 7,00+-0.09 % ==> OK
88Sr : 83,16+-0.05 % ==> + 0.58+-0.05 % ...

Actually i have now realized that the main anomalies are not at all, the half percent excess on Sr88 or deficit on Sr86 but the 0.09% deficit on Sr84.
Indeed its a 17% relative anomaly on the normal fraction of this isotope and a negative one thus it can only be explained by interferences giving a 17% relative excess on the sum of all other isotopes, implying very large amounts of the polyatomic ions responsible for them.
I was not able to find better candidates than the following ones (but since my expertise is very uncertain here its possible that some of these interferences are actually not possible...any expert around ?):

0.08% Ca(40)Ca(44) ions + 31.8% Ar(40)Ti(46;47;48) ions + 3.87% FeO2 ions,

which exactly reproduces the observed anomalies. All percentages given here are relative to the total abundancy on Strontium. The interference with ArTi is huge even if this is by far the best ion candidate because the Argon is ultradominant in the Plasma. This means that the ArTi ions must have an abundancy of ~ 1/3 times 400ppm (400pm is the fraction of Sr in my sample) that is 130ppm while Ti itself has a 2400ppm fraction in the sample therefore 5% of the Ti atoms must have formed polyatomic ions with the Argon atoms. It seems to me that these number are very unlikely because an ICP-MS which would not be able to separate and ionize more than 95% of each element, would be completely useless ...

So i find it difficult now to believe that the anomalies are due to interferences

Moreover the fact that the Sr87 abundancy is found again at its 7% natural value in presence of interferences of such a huge magnitude is an extraordinary coincidence while if we admit a genuine isotopic anomaly the transformation of Sr86 and Sr84 into Sr88 (absorption of alpha particles?) with Sr87 spectator would work perfectly.

Fred

So you suggest that dropping a small piece of lightweight, 30 years old, non-structural concrete (energy applied) on a bigger piece of similar structure, the latter becomes 60 microns dust concrete (result of energy absorbed).

Just thought I pipe in with this:





2000 year old concrete ^.

It doesn't become dust by dropping one floor. What you had is an avalanche of churning material chaotically crashing and smashing itself to bits. And there was all that GWB which goes to dust with very little "agitation". The avalanche was funneled between core and facade and there was enormous gravitational energy released. Wouldn't you expect the lightweight concrete to be crushed to bits falling 1000 feet with another 200,000 tons of materials?

I wouldn't expect to find many large chucks of concrete.

Assuming that there were no explosives blowing up the floors and they severed the floors supports at 6 floors at once so they began to drop... what would you expect to find when the dust settled? Intact slabs stacked up? a few hundreds thousand tons would do a lot of crushing... no?

SanderO wrote: What you had is an avalanche of churning material chaotically crashing and smashing itself to bits.

Can you provide any demonstration of this theory outside of your belief that it is what happened on 9/11? The only way I can figure to get pulverisation on such a scale is with explosives.

A portion of this thread has been split, see Quarantine and Discard Area.

Sorry, the post above was accidentally swept up in the split, has now been moved back.

The only way I can figure to get pulverisation on such a scale is with explosives.

I don't think so because if you use the explosives to pulverize the concrete floors then most of your energy is wasted in the pulverization of the concrete. No one would place tons of (silent) explosives this way just to generate a huge dust cloud.
I imagine thousands of fast rotating chunks of heavy steel on the way down. These chunks hit another piece of e.g. concrete and change the direction, angle, speed, shape, everything. It's a usual collision and a lot of energy is involved. Now that chunk maybe rotates in the opposite direction. Mathematically it's rotational kinetic energy might be "negative". In the sum it might be zero. It doesn't matter. The next piece of concrete just meets a (negative) rotating ton of steel with pretty sharp edges. Next collision. May be the steel is now pushed backwards and doesn't rotate anymore. It doesn't matter. The next floor - rotation forwards - next piece of concrete - rotation backwards ... It's a tremendous concrete mill and the bigger pieces might fall ahead and hitting the ground.
The energy of these pieces was partially transformed into seismic energy (maybe 5%) partially in heat and probably most of it in pulverization (deformation).
Probably that chunk of steel will hit the ground with less (kinetic) energy than it previously had stored as potential energy. Same for the concrete dust. We only can estimate the global sum of energies involved and we should not forget the six basement floors full of debris and filled up to Plaza level. It's 111000 cubic meters of debris and a lot of mass that came down exactly in the footprint.
Once some magazines wrote articles about how many tons of debris and how much volume of debris... at Ground zero. From the given numbers I estimated a average debris density of 1313 kg/m³. So 146000 tons came down exactly in the footprint and caused a lot of destruction for sure. Well, almost all perimeter steel came down outside just like the powder.

In the end I'm not astonished to see a lot of dust. I don't need explosives to pulverize the concrete. It wouldn't make any sense to pulverize it on purpose or just accidentally. If you use explosives then you MUST know how to focus the released energy. If you don't know it then you get a big cloud of dust. That's it.

achimspok wrote:I don't think so because if you use the explosives to pulverize the concrete floors then most of your energy is wasted in the pulverization of the concrete.

If you use explosives to dislodge the columns, and can't be precise in your placement of those explosives due to operating covertly, then you have to use a lot more energy to get the job done, and hence wind up pulverizing the concrete too, along with the steel floor pans that held it up, and pretty much everything else. There were no notable sized chunks of anything but columns and beams in the rubble, eh?

achimspok wrote:...(silent) explosives...

Rather, quite loud.

achimspok wrote:I don't need explosives to pulverize the concrete.

Can you provide any physical demonstration to support this claim? I've yet to see any reason to believe the towers would've come down at all without considerable assistance from explosives, let alone resulted in so much pulverization.

Well-known collapse videos and aerial photography of the WTC site clearly show there was a pronounced wind (~ 5 m/s) from the north in New York City throughout, and for days after 9/11.

About 5 m/s was the speed of the wind given by a nearby airport and at ground level. During my analysis of the flight speed of the airplanes I modeled spheres to simulate the smoke at 400m elevation. That smoke moved at about 10m/s almost exactly from north to south.

Rather, quite loud.

The sound in this video you linked is completely altered with pitched gunshots and breaking glass. I analyzed it here:
http://www.youtube.com/achimspok#p/u/77/rkP6jpZ4V1c

If you use explosives to dislodge the columns, and can't be precise in your placement of those explosives due to operating covertly, then you have to use a lot more energy to get the job done

That's right but if explosives were used then these explosives were placed in a very sophisticated way probably inside the elevator shafts with full access to the best place to do it. Without the need to cut the steel you probably would place it between the floors just to bend the columns and to take them out of the equation. The pressure pulse lose its energy with the growing surface of the spherical wave (square of the radius). It probably would damage or pulverize some concrete but wouldn't explain the observed amounts of dust.

There were no notable sized chunks of anything but columns and beams in the rubble, eh?

Yes, we talk about whats seen on top of the pile and mostly outside of the footprint. Inside of the footprint of WTC1 a part of the elevator shafts remained and I never saw what is below. The only known pictures from below the surface were shot in the subway station and also outside the footprint. So I simply don't know how big the chunks were down there. Anyone? I wouldn't expect pancaked floors but I would expect a little more than just powder.

Can you provide any physical demonstration to support this claim?

What do you expect? A little film or something at a ranch with some concrete model crushed by rotating steel in midair? Or should I show you how a steel hammer can crush concrete especially if the hammer reaches approximately some similar energy?

I've yet to see any reason to believe the towers would've come down at all without considerable assistance from explosives, let alone resulted in so much pulverization.

That's a completely different question. I also have immense problems to see the top of WTC1 rotate about the damaged north face - means about the initial damaged wall - means all columns must be affected before the damaged wall gave way.
And I have a big problem to see dust jets from "random" floors like 85. And the "pulverized" dust in these jets is ALWAYS (from any perspective at any time) much brighter than the concrete dust from the floors.

This is the huge dust ejection from 85N/87W seen from west. The left half of floor 87 is covered by the dust from the dust jet. The right half of the floor is already covered by the dust from the collapse avalanche in the SW corner. Obviously we have two different kinds of dust or smoke. And thats a problem.