Physics Of 9/11 Events

Grumpy

1st March 2007 - 03:31 PM

einsteen

QUOTE

Strange pictures, the perimeter is still connected but from the core they are detached, it is not a wedge effect in the strict sense but a kind of pancaking.

If you observe the videos of wtc1 you see the antenna dropping and the whole block as a whole but no standing core columns with free movable floors.

The picture I posted is representing the first moment of collapse. The buckled exterior columns have yet to detach but it gives a very good idea of what is to come next.

Why would you expect to see core columns or free movable floors??? It is obvious(to me) that the core has been stressed to the point of failure here, and, with such small cross sections, have become dissassociated from each other, no longer transfering loads from the top block to the remaining building structure. Rubble from the distorted section(and it's detaching floors) does indeed begin the pancaking process, which preceeded the outward, visible collapse front throughout the collapse.

And the wedging need not be perfect, just the PRESSURE of the rubble from inside will drive the outward frames away from the center.

Grumpy

kahlmyishmael

1st March 2007 - 03:33 PM

QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Mar 1 2007, 02:34 AM)

kahlmyishmael,

You might've meant to type wtc 7 when you talked about "pull", but you typed wtc 6, and that's why I said it really was pulled. I also said that is the classic and only use of the word "pull" that demo people use. You can gripe and point out what Silverstein said all you want, BUT HE'S NOT A DEMO GUY or a FIREFIGHTER.

Since I 'butted in' so to speak, I've seen how you rant and rave about all kinds of wild topics, so you'll have to forgive me if I put you on 'ignore' from now on. Though let me suggest one thing... DECAFF dude. You need to ease up.

*I corrected a misspelled word.

...no, I meant WTC 6... the troothers have an audio recording posted in response to the debunking911.org claims about Silverstein.

So no explosives were used to bring WTC 6 down?

...and if explosives were indeed used to bring WTC 6 down, the "pull" meant actual "pulling" with equipment, correct?

...and hyperlink me to where debunking911.org deals with that AS WELL AS where they annihilate the troothers MISREPRESENTATIONS about the time that transpired between the comments made by Silverstein and his reps.

I'm not "ranting" and "raving" .. I'm laughing my *** off at how you all claim "rant" and "rave" when you've danced yourselves into corners you can't dance yourselves out of.

I mean for supporters of the US Government's representations... you guys are doing a poor job...

..and debunking911.org is also doing a poor job OR THEY'RE intentionally ignoring topics that the "troothers" would be using to mislead the poor American public.

einsteen

1st March 2007 - 03:37 PM

But some people think all core columns were still standing after the collapse...

kahlmyishmael

1st March 2007 - 03:44 PM

QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Mar 1 2007, 02:12 AM)

"It's not every day you try to pull down an 8-story building with cables."

My bad, it wasn't bulldozers, it was backhoes.

WTC 6 was PULLED

You asked for proof, so watch this short clip.

Well, thank you for the clip on WTC 6...

So no explosives were used?

If so, then indeed at least a subset of the troothers were being "intellectually dishonest".. I stand corrected.

So there is NO industry jargon for "pull" or the "industry jargon" for "pull" means "with cables or non-explosive means", correct?

You see, Alex....

Now we can, as a group, write to debunking911.org and provide a consolidated PhysOrg Forum response to:

1) What Andrew Card was whispering into George' Bush's ear that he really witnessed the SECOND plane crash and that America was under attack from TWO terrible pilots NOT flying small Cessna aircraft but big 757s

2) we can suffix an explanation as the 400 foot lightpole surrounding the Pentagon

3) We can explain the time that transpired between Silverstein's comments

FactCheck

1st March 2007 - 03:46 PM

QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 1 2007, 10:33 AM)

9/11 photos must be properly labeled and explained to be legitimate.

9/11 videos to be credible, must be be accompanied by a sh*t for brains narrator and porn music.

I say the same thing...

www.debunking911.com/gallagher.jpg

lozenge124

1st March 2007 - 03:47 PM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 1 2007, 03:31 PM)

einsteen

The picture I posted is representing the first moment of collapse. The buckled exterior columns have yet to detach but it gives a very good idea of what is to come next.

Why would you expect to see core columns or free movable floors??? It is obvious(to me) that the core has been stressed to the point of failure here, and, with such small cross sections, have become dissassociated from each other, no longer transfering loads from the top block to the remaining building structure. Rubble from the distorted section(and it's detaching floors) does indeed begin the pancaking process, which preceeded the outward, visible collapse front throughout the collapse.

And the wedging need not be perfect, just the PRESSURE of the rubble from inside will drive the outward frames away from the center.

Grumpy

Once again for Grumpy:

QUOTE

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

adoucette

1st March 2007 - 04:04 PM

debunking911.org

must REALLY be keeping ol Kalme's panties in a twist.

ROTFLMAO

Arthur

FactCheck

1st March 2007 - 04:14 PM

The worse thing about debunking911.org is that IT DOESN'T EXIST!

adoucette

1st March 2007 - 04:28 PM

QUOTE

I only need to catch our government in a couple of lies regarding 9/11

Write back when you succeed.

Question, why is it that CT'ers have EGOs that are inversely proportional to their intelligence?

Arthur

kahlmyishmael

1st March 2007 - 04:33 PM

QUOTE (FactCheck+Mar 1 2007, 04:14 PM)

The worse thing about debunking911.org is that IT DOESN'T EXIST!

It was just a generic term I was using to reference all the sites, i believe that was understood.

But seeing as how you've responded, I'm glad to present you with the opportunity to show where one of those debunking sites listed here...

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

So where do any of those "pro-US Government expalantion" sites expalin the questions that you have all fled from?

Have Arthur hyperlink you to where he and Grumpy constructively maintained what it was that Andrew Card was whispeing into George Bush's ear on 9/11 in that classroom, FactCheck.

It must be confirmed on ONE of those sites, correct?

If not, at least the topic was discussed/explained on ONE of those debunking 9/11 sites.

You agree with what Grumpy and Arthur consrtructively maintained, correct Fact Check?

Would you like to accept the free $500 USS LIberty challenge I offered Palpatane? I can show you many USS Liberty debunking articles which state the attack was a "tragic mistake".. so Isarel would NEVER twice doctor PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, correct?

A free $500, fact check...why refuse the cahllenge when there are so many pro-US Government articles debunking the constructive "murder" claims made by CIA Director Richard Helms and the crew,etc ?

Buttery Crust!?!...no, a Free $500!

Grumpy

1st March 2007 - 04:35 PM

lozenge124

QUOTE

Once again for Grumpy:

QUOTE
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Once again for lozenge124

NIST only dismissed pancaking for the cause of the INITIATION of collapse(that was column failure, as shown by NIST). Pancaking occured AFTER the INITIATION and stripped the floors(and thus the support for the frame and core) ahead of the visible collapse.

Why do you CTers have so much of a problem understanding English or logic, or physics or just plain common sense. It's as if you WANT to be seen as stupid and clueless!!!

einsteen

Pictures AFTER the collapse show SOME core columns still standing briefly, but they were unable to remain standing more than a few seconds before their inherent instability caused them to bend and snap(mostly at the welds).

Grumpy

kahlmyishmael

1st March 2007 - 04:44 PM

QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2007, 04:04 PM)

debunking911.org

must REALLY be keeping ol Kalme's panties in a twist.

ROTFLMAO

Arthur

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

So one of these many debunking sites have an explabnation of what it was that Andrew card was whispering into George Bush's ear about that being the second plane he actually saw on the TV that "was obviously on", correct.

Care to taker the free $500 USS Liberty challenge, Arthur?

..or are your panties in a twist because NONE of these ahemmm... debunkingggg sites wants to talk about the comment Bush made TWICE at different locations?

FactCheck

1st March 2007 - 04:54 PM

QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Mar 1 2007, 03:52 PM)

1) Where would "one place to start looking for " debunking911.org's explanation of what George Bush meant when he TWIVCE stated at 2 differnet TOWN HALL meetings that he saw the FIRST PLANE crash into the towers on a TV "that was obviously on" before he was whisked away?

2) Where would be "one place to start looking for" debunking911.org's explanation of what Andrew Card had whispered into George Bush's ear...consistent with what honest brokers, Grumpy and Arthur(adoucette) have already maintained

3) Where would be "one place to start looking for" on debunking911.org the explanation of why dangerously high400+ foot lightpoles were on the beltway surrounding the Penatgon which the attacking plane clipped?

First, it's debunking911.COM, not ORG. Check your facts more carefully.

1) From the conspiracy theorists we learn that: The perimeter columns were not pulled in over time because debunking911 does not answer what andrew Card said to Bush on 911.

2) From the conspiracy theorists we learn that: The perimeter columns were not pulled in over time because debunking911 does not answer why there were 400+ foot lightpoles at the pentagon.

3) From the conspiracy theorists we learn that: The perimeter columns were not pulled in over time because debunking911 does not answer why George Bush said he saw the first plane hit.

Is that the logic? If not then why bring it up?

Grumpy

1st March 2007 - 04:55 PM

kahlmyishmael

QUOTE

I already have a winner on the issue of Israel murdering 34 of the crew of the USS Liberty and one other set of murders....

Here we go again with the racist ranting. Just because the Isrealis have done things in the past, all things are their fault. And if we don't buy the ranting of this OBL shill, we must be complicit in the murders of our own people. OBL says it's our own fault he had to kill us, after all.

Personally. I'm tired of these sorts of pig droppings coming from the know-nothing porkers of the CTer crowd. They can go elsewhere if all they can do is wallow in the filth of their own fevered imaginations, we shouldn't have to put up with the stench eminating from their self chosen sty. I have so informed the administration of this forum, I hope all others truly interested in discussing the physics of 9/11 would do the same. Were I a CTer, I would not want to be dragged into the pig sty with them, and would say so LOUDLY, what say you???

Grumpy

lozenge124

1st March 2007 - 05:10 PM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 1 2007, 04:35 PM)

The NIST says nothing of the sort. The faq says:
"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse"
"the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. "
To me this is quite clear.

In the report itself, the NIST is famously vague about anything that happens after collapse initation:

QUOTE

the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued.

Please provide a quote from the NIST report to back up your claims that:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued.

Please provide a quote from the NIST report to back up your claims that:Pancaking occured AFTER the INITIATION and stripped the floors(and thus the support for the frame and core) ahead of the visible collapse.

As I have said to DBB it is important to distinguish between your own personal (and rather absurd, I might add) speculations, to what is actually presented in the NIST report.

Finally, it's interesting to note that the Greening/Bazant & Verdure "E1" model that is so often trotted out here as "proof" that a gravity driven collapse is possible energy-wise is completely at odds with your concept of floors pancaking "ahead of the visible collapse". Do you realize this?

Out of interest what is your background in Physics?

FactCheck

1st March 2007 - 05:25 PM

QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Mar 1 2007, 04:56 PM)

Care to accept the free $500 USS Liberty challenge, FactCheck?

No, now do you care to answer the questions?... Let me guess, NO.

Grumpy

1st March 2007 - 05:45 PM

lozenge124

QUOTE

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse"

At one time the working hypothesis was that failing(pancaking) floors INITIATED collapse, it is this that NIST rejected. Nor did NIST go into the details of the collapse after "Global collapse" insued.

The pancaking of the floors, however, did occur in both towers, the contents of which were removed from the basement levels(see the "meteorite" in the NIST samples, three floors compressed to three feet) and could be seen progressing ahead of the visible collapse by the puffs of air and dust coming from floors below that collapse. Nothing NIST has said precludes pancaking AFTER collapse initiation.

kahlmyishmael

I don't have much to say to racist Aholes.

Grumpy

lozenge124

1st March 2007 - 06:23 PM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 1 2007, 05:45 PM)

Just like with DBB, when pushed for a NIST quote proving his assertions Grumpy bows out and lamely states that the NIST doesn't "preclude it". Well seeing as the NIST report doesn't say anything about collapse after initation there are not very many things that it does preclude, but that does not make them true.
And this is certainly not a strong enough position from which to berate anyone who critiques him for not "understanding English or logic, or physics or just plain common sense. It's as if you WANT to be seen as stupid and clueless!!!"

Grumpy, I notice that you side-stepped the Greening/Bazant-Verdure question. Is it because you realize that it requires a "pile-driver" collapse and "precludes" a pancake collapse? You can't have your pancake and eat it too!

As entertaining as it is to read the wild speculations of Grumpy, DBB et al. on collapse progression, it's time to admit that the NIST report failed in its goal of explaining how and why the towers collapsed, and to push for a new investigation that would explain and model events through collapse initation all the way to the end of the collapse.
( http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html )

QUOTE

To shield the reader from the evidence of controlled demolition, NIST fills hundreds of pages with amazingly realistic plane crash simulations, tedious details about fire tests and simulations, and long lists of recommendations for improving building safety. It calls its event narrative of each Tower, which starts with the jet impact and ends at the point that "collapse ensued," the "probable collapse sequence," but it is neither probable nor a collapse sequence.

NIST's misleadingly named "probable collapse sequence" is a mirage, masking the explosive reality of the collapses with a cinematic account of the crashes and fires. NIST's theory stops at the moment that the "upper building section began to move downwards," thus avoiding the longer timeline of the truss-failure theory and any overlap with the time span in which the demolition-like features appear. Despite NIST's theory being even more incredible than its predecessors (with spreading "column instability" triggering "global collapse" in an instant) it works better as a mirage because its timelines stop short of the collapses.

NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective, and hides that failure with misleading headings and disproportionate, misapplied technical detail. Its authors should admit that they have failed to explain why and how the Towers collapsed, and should call for an investigation that will address rather than avoid the issue.

adoucette

1st March 2007 - 06:28 PM

NIST explains quite clearly why the towers collapsed.

Plane, fire, sagging trusses, pull in forces, yada, yada, yada

It has held up under review going on 2 years.

Still you want to

QUOTE

push for a new investigation that would explain and model events through collapse initation all the way to the end of the collapse.

Why?

What purpose would it serve?

Why should I support spending money at trying to determine how the collapse PROGRESSED?

Arthur

kahlmyishmael

1st March 2007 - 06:32 PM

QUOTE (FactCheck+Mar 1 2007, 06:24 PM)

In other words you want to change the subject. Because if the perimeter columns were pulled in over time there are no explosives which could cause this effect, is there.

In other words there is nothing wrong with anything on debunking911. You simply want to attack it's credibility using the old creationist argument. "It doesn't answer [this] so it must all be wrong." A sad argument the average person will see right through.

No..by all means...if "pulling in those perimeter columns conclusively establishes what you said it did"..then direct me to that hyperlink.

I'm interested in the truth....

...even if you're avoiding/evading the following TWO questions that I asked..

So...does one add altitude in the presence of a +0.30 inHg discrepancy or subtract altitude?

Are you willing to accept the free $500 USS Liberty challenge for a doantion to charity?

David B. Benson

1st March 2007 - 07:20 PM

lozenge124 --- NCSTAR1-3C

3.53 Summary page 199 (169 ordinal)
Figure 3-51a page 182 (232 ordinal)

clearly indicate the so-called pancaking of the floors after collapse initiation.

Furthermore, there are several visuals of the compressed trusses stacked one atop the other at Ground Zero.

But I prefer to call pancaking bageling.

roves shill --- I was going to respond to something you posted several pages back, but there has been so much interference on the thread lately that I forget what it was...

adoucette

1st March 2007 - 07:57 PM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 1 2007, 11:35 AM)

lozenge124
Once again for Grumpy:

QUOTE

OK,

There is a DIFFERENCE between the issue of what caused the COLLAPSE to start and what happened AFTER the collapse was underway.

There HAD been a theory that the INITIATION of the Collapse was DUE TO pancaking floors.

This is what NIST was addressing in its FAQs.

NIST most certainly does not believe that there wasn't PANCAKING DURING the collapse.

See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3

...
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".

Arthur

David B. Benson

1st March 2007 - 08:18 PM

NEU-FONZE --- That bit of chemistry is interesting. However, perhaps there is another source of the two elements?

Depends on how much there is, of course, but I suggest electrical transformer explosions.

FactCheck

1st March 2007 - 08:21 PM

QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Mar 1 2007, 06:32 PM)

I'll do better than that. I'll SHOW you the last stages of the collapse initiation which PROVE the columns were pulled in.

www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

You can CLEARLY see the trusses sagging from the fires and the columns pulling in over time. The ONLY explination which makes sense is multible floors of sagging trusses pulled the columns in over time until the the weight above became to much for the deflection. Thermite CAN'T do it. Any other explosive or method of controlled demolition can't do it.

Please direct me to a controlled demolition which pulls columns in well before the event.

PS: I think Card told Bush "Guckert is waiting in the car Mr President". Prove me wrong... (<--- That's the logic you bring to this debate)

NEU-FONZE

1st March 2007 - 08:43 PM

DBB:

You may well be correct.... I have just found another source of environmental manganese and that is as a fuel additive known as MMT ( methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl).

But since the amount of iron in the WTC dust is quite large - its about 1/10 of the calcium concentration - that would be a huge amount manganese from fuel combustion during 9/11.

For example: If there were 100,000 tonnes of WTC dust there would have been about 25,000 tonnes of it as chemically combined calcium; 2,500 tonnes of it as iron and 50 tonnes as manganese.

NF

adoucette

1st March 2007 - 09:09 PM

Its also used in dry cell batteries and in paints and glass as a pigment.

Arthur

David B. Benson

1st March 2007 - 09:43 PM

NEU-FONZE --- That is a lot of powered iron!

David B. Benson

1st March 2007 - 10:08 PM

QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Mar 1 2007, 09:41 PM)

So David Benson... as an OCTer moderator [snip]

I am not a moderator, although I do attempt to be moderate in the face of ... Well, if I spelled it out I wouldn't be being moderate, would I?

But this is a thread of PhysOrgForum: let us attempt to restrict our comments to physics and, more generally, SciTech. There are plenty of political or historical blogs for other matters.

Grumpy

1st March 2007 - 10:16 PM

lozenge124

QUOTE

Grumpy, I notice that you side-stepped the Greening/Bazant-Verdure question. Is it because you realize that it requires a "pile-driver" collapse and "precludes" a pancake collapse? You can't have your pancake and eat it too!

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Who told you that you could not have both a "Bagel" collapse(thanks DBB) followed by a pile driver bringing down the rest of the structure??? In the chaotic collapse conditions both could have(And evidently did) occur.

As entertaining as it is to read the wild speculations of Grumpy, DBB et al. on collapse progression, it's time to admit that the NIST report failed in its goal of explaining how and why the towers collapsed, and to push for a new investigation that would explain and model events through collapse initation all the way to the end of the collapse.

BS!!! NIST's reports(the final drafts) have been out for more than two years and are accepted as the most likely scenario by most engineers and other pros. In fact the only people squawking are the know-nothing retards of the "troother" movement who simply have their heads so far up their butt that they must open their shirts and peek out their bellybutton to keep from running into things.

QUOTE

Just like with DBB, when pushed for a NIST quote proving his assertions Grumpy bows out and lamely states that the NIST doesn't "preclude it".

YOU are the one trying to say NIST does precluded pancaking(Bagelling), not me. They only said it was not the cause of initiation. Nor did I claim NIST is the only source for evidence(though the "meteorite" pretty well proves my contention all by itself). Many videos show the puffs of air indicating collapsing floors well below the visible collapse front. And 1.6 MILLION TONS of floor debris and contents were removed from the basement levels, very little floor debris was found anywhere else, indicating the floors collapsed inside the still intact external structure, funneling it into the basements. Then the pile driver(upper block of floors) came along and smashed the external frame and core members flat. So the Bagelling of the floors is well within the available evidence.

Any other relivant physics questions???

Grumpy

adoucette

1st March 2007 - 10:30 PM

NIST most certainly does believe that there was PANCAKING DURING the collapse.

See: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3

...
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".

Arthur

David B. Benson

1st March 2007 - 10:46 PM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 1 2007, 10:16 PM)

... "Bagel" collapse(thanks DBB) ...
Many videos show the puffs of air ...

You are welcome.

The puffs of air below the main collapse front are due to overpressurizing the lower portion of the tower. For example, some of the puffs are coming out the ventilator shafts on the mechanical floors. For bageling to occur almost all of the air in the story has to be expelled. Most of it goes out the windows, but some goes down the core voids, such as stairwells, elevator shafts, air shafts and utility shafts.

Near the beginning of thread #2 I computed just how easy it was to overpressurize the lower portion. Indeed, some fortunate survivors were blown down six flights of stairs by this overpressurization.

metacomment: That was fast! Thank you.

kahlmyishmael

2nd March 2007 - 12:00 AM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 1 2007, 10:46 PM)

You are welcome.

metacomment: That was fast! Thank you.

David, could we have your input on the Pentagon Flight video simulation?

David B. Benson

2nd March 2007 - 12:03 AM

QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Mar 2 2007, 12:00 AM)

David, could we have your input on the Pentagon Flight video simulation?

This thread just does World Trade Center. There is another thread, maybe on another forum, that does Pentagon.

I don't follow it.

No terribly interesting physics involved...

roves shill

2nd March 2007 - 12:03 AM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 1 2007, 10:46 PM)

You are welcome.

DBB speculating again......squibs out of ventilator shafts....... wedging....... pancaking...... bageling......... book about snowflakes. It is right here in front of us. Just read the report.

QUOTE

Most of it goes out the windows, but some goes down the core voids, such as stairwells, elevator shafts, air shafts and utility shafts.

is there any evidence at all of this statement?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Most of it goes out the windows, but some goes down the core voids, such as stairwells, elevator shafts, air shafts and utility shafts.

is there any evidence at all of this statement?

Indeed, some fortunate survivors were blown down six flights of stairs by this overpressurization.

And this was due to bageling.

David B. Benson

2nd March 2007 - 12:14 AM

roves shill --- The puffs of air are evidence of overpressurization. The survivors being blown down flights of stairs are evidence of overpressurization. Indeed, photos of materials being blown out of the lobby, well before the crushing block had descended there, is evidence of overpressurization.

Well, there is the crushing front. Part of that is what I have chosen to call bageling. The crushing front expells air from the story currently being crushed. Most goes out, some goes down.

kahlmyishmael

2nd March 2007 - 12:33 AM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 2 2007, 12:03 AM)

This thread just does World Trade Center. There is another thread, maybe on another forum, that does Pentagon.

I don't follow it.

No terribly interesting physics involved...

it would be a lot more interesting if the physics involved showed the US government lied, David.

Correct?

lozenge124

2nd March 2007 - 12:36 AM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 2 2007, 12:14 AM)

so we are to believe that the floors are internally bageling past where the squibs are seen.

Again, interesting (and nutty) theory, but the NIST says nothing about the details of post-collapse initiation events.

David B. Benson

2nd March 2007 - 12:41 AM

QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 2 2007, 12:36 AM)

so we are to believe that the floors are internally bageling past where the squibs are seen.

Wrong again. The puffs of air are below the crushing front. The bageling happens at the obvious location of the crushing front. Obvious from the massive expulsion of dusty air.

FactCheck

2nd March 2007 - 12:41 AM

QUOTE (roves shill+Mar 2 2007, 12:03 AM)

DBB speculating again......squibs out of ventilator shafts....... wedging....... pancaking...... bageling......... book about snowflakes. It is right here in front of us. Just read the report.

is there any evidence at all of this statement?

And this was due to bageling.

www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

roves shill

2nd March 2007 - 12:45 AM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 2 2007, 12:14 AM)

The puffs of debri are from explosions DBB. You are a liar. Period. Even your president knows that.

explosives

FactCheck

2nd March 2007 - 12:47 AM

QUOTE (roves shill+Mar 2 2007, 12:45 AM)

The puffs of debri are from explosions DBB. You are a liar. Period. Even your president knows that.

explosives

The puffs are from overpressurization. There is no evidence of anything else.

lozenge124

2nd March 2007 - 12:49 AM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 2 2007, 12:41 AM)

Wrong again. The puffs of air are below the crushing front. The bageling happens at the obvious location of the crushing front. Obvious from the massive expulsion of dusty air.

The picture is taken a few moments after the dust has started being expelled. In these few moments the floors will have moved past that area. You specialize in petty bickering, yes?

In any case, even if the floors are slightly above the squibs they are still way below the rest of the collapse with no apparent damage to the building for many stories above the squibs.

Out of interest, do you have any background in physics or science at all?

David B. Benson

2nd March 2007 - 12:51 AM

QUOTE (roves shill+Mar 2 2007, 12:45 AM)

The puffs of debri[sic] are from explosions DBB. You are a liar.

A liar is one who tells an untruth knowing it is untrue. I do my very best to avoid lies.

No, not explosives. The rate of expulsion from explosives is very high, much higher than observed. NEU-FONZE checked the expulsion rate for some of the air puffs. These are rather close to the rate of the descending crushing mass.

Hence the inference, overpressurization.

Furthermore, there was no evidence at Ground Zero whatsoever for the use of explosives.

FactCheck

2nd March 2007 - 12:55 AM

Why aren't there any of these so called "squibs" before the collapse starts? They're all during collapse and increase as the collapse front nears. I've never seen controlled demolitions work that way. Squibs usually go off first THEN the collapse starts. Anyone care to answer this question?

David B. Benson

2nd March 2007 - 01:01 AM

QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 2 2007, 12:49 AM)

Out of interest, do you have any background in physics or science at all?

The picture? Which one?

I believe it is from a video?

You are simply wrong about the location of the crushing front. The air must be moved out of the way for the crushing front to fall onto the next floor below. Hence the location of the crushing front can be determined with some precision from certain videos of WTC 2. shagster has done some work with these.

Petty bickering?

No, on the contrary by now I understand quite a bit about the collapse of both towers.

It is clear by now that I understand vastly more about physics and science in general than you do:

(1) Look at all the evidence.
(2) Perform experiments.
(3) Find this simplest hypothesis which agrees with (1) and (2) and is consistent with first principles, here of physics.

Now NIST did (1) and (2). I do simulations, which can sometimes substitute for experiments.

roves shill

2nd March 2007 - 01:07 AM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 2 2007, 12:51 AM)

A liar is one who tells an untruth knowing it is untrue. I do my very best to avoid lies.

I still don't believe you DBB, not that it matters. You deal with your own maker.

explosives

lozenge124

2nd March 2007 - 01:12 AM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 2 2007, 01:01 AM)

It is clear by now that I understand vastly more about physics and science in general than you do:

It is clear to me that you have quite the inflated ego, my friend.

Your posts seem to be carefully calculated to maximize irritation, rather than to further some kind of scientific debate. It's a shame because there seem to be people here who have something valid to contribute; and your omnipresence and wacky unfounded statements, combined with a misplaced arrogance are driving them away. (but perhaps that is your intent)

David B. Benson

2nd March 2007 - 01:15 AM

roves shill --- Go find some good videos of controlled demolitions using explosives. Compare those to the video of WTC 2 which shows the puffs of air.

Use some thought in appropriately determining the rates of material expulsion. I think you will find a considerable difference.

Finally, once again, there is no evidence for the use of explosives at Ground Zero.

This might not be the conclusion you desire, but physics is notorious for not agreeing with people's desires. That is why the general rule in using the scientific method to use the simplest hypothesis which follows from first principles and conforms to the data...

lozenge124 --- Reality can be irritating. When I have confidence about something I say so. You are welcome to ask how, using what, causes my confidence. But when you complain about an elementary gravity calculation, one which you didn't seem to comprehend, then my estimation of your abilities was adjusted accordingly.

Please ask questions! I don't think the collapses of these towers are easy to understand, at least in some detail. But when you flat-out make incorrect statements, I will certainly let you know. Sorry, that is just the way I am.

metamars

2nd March 2007 - 01:22 AM

Oh, my, I go away for a few weeks, and what do I find when I come back? Posts about "bageling"?? What next, filleting?

Sorry if this was already posted, but physicist Greg Jenkins interviews Judy Woods at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

Judy implies that not much debris fell down during what most people refer to as "the collapse(s)", and that most of the debris was nano-particles that was wafted up. This interview has to be seen to be believed.

Dr. Jenkins has also contributed an article to the Journal of 911 Studies, though it doesn't appear on the appropriate web page, today. Perhaps it's being modified. For those who can't wait, see

"The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers" (co-author Matt Sullivan)

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...ory-Jenkins.pdf

==============================

Also, there is an article by yet another civil engineer expressing doubt regarding the WTC collapses:

Why the towers fell: Two theories

By William Rice

http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/...winTowers.shtml

David B. Benson

2nd March 2007 - 01:25 AM

metamars --- How is your course going? Well, I hope.

I prefer the term bageling to pancaking for the hole in the middle. Seems more like the shape of the floors versus the core...

By the way, William Rice, P.E., obviously hasn't put much thought into the matter...

metamars

2nd March 2007 - 01:31 AM

Also of interest:

"Hand Waving" the Physics of 9/11

by
David L Griscom
Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966. Fellow, American Physical Society. Research physicist at naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Washington, DC, 1967-2001. Officially credited with the largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988. 185 total articles now in print. Fulbright-Garcia Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico 1997. Invited Professor 200-2004; Universites de Paris-6&7, Lyon-1, et St.-Etienne (France) and Todyo Institute of Technology. Adjunct Professor of materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona 2004-2005

Wherein, Griscom deals with Garcia's handwaving in his Counterpunch articles.

http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters...vid-griscom.pdf

lozenge124

2nd March 2007 - 01:32 AM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 2 2007, 01:15 AM)

Right back at you buddy! Your tenuous grasp on gravity theory was demonstrated amply in your Greening/B&V E1 posts (by the way, I didn't see you subtract the mass of the "bageling" floors from the upper block in your calculations

)... Feel free to continue making a fool out of yourself, but no one here appointed you teacher or professor.

Personally I'm rather sick and tired of every good post here being brought down to the level of a grade school pissing conquest by your posts.

Feel free to ignore my posts from now on and let someone else have a say. I certainly will ignore yours.

David B. Benson

2nd March 2007 - 01:39 AM

QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 2 2007, 01:32 AM)

Your tenuous grasp on gravity theory was demonstrated amply in your Greening/B&V E1 posts (by the way, I didn't see you subtract the mass of the "bageling" floors from the upper block in your calculations

)

No, you need to understand from the B&V paper that the upper, crushing block, must remain more-or-less uncrushed.

Second, the crushing mass grows as bageled floors become part of the descending crushing mass.

And when I see a bad post, one violating either the first principles of physics or contradicting NIST or observations, I'll certainly point it out.

metamars --- Griscom also has not carefully looked at the evidence. And if he wishes to work out a simple model of progressive collapse, he'll re-invent the Greening/B&V crush-down equations. (Yawn)

Grumpy

2nd March 2007 - 01:51 AM

metamars

I notice your physics prof thinks 9/11 research is a journal of some standing. I don't know his motivation but his conclusions about explosives being used are simply not supported by the evidence and seem to be made up from thin air(very, very thin air). I await his peer reviewed paper on these conclusions in a professional journal, so far NADA.

lozenge124

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Both DBB and I have pointed out to you that your "science" does not measure up, sorry if omeone pointing out your logical falacies hurts your feelings, but that's life in the big city.

Grumpy

metamars

2nd March 2007 - 01:56 AM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 2 2007, 01:25 AM)

metamars --- How is your course going? Well, I hope.

I prefer the term bageling to pancaking for the hole in the middle. Seems more like the shape of the floors versus the core...

By the way, William Rice, P.E., obviously hasn't put much thought into the matter...

Thanks. The instructor was excellent (and we compared notes on our mutual alma mater, Rutgers, beforehand), but I stopped attending. I've let my health slide, and wanted to focus on getting it back. Hopefully I will be physically fit by next fall, though financial fitness may take another year or two.

For anybody out there who is having weight/energy/health problems, or who is smarter than I've been and wants to preclude same, I highly, HIGHLY recommend "Mastering Leptin" by Richards and Richards. (I also recommend the books and programs to be found at drfuhrman.com, but be forewarned that his diet is harder to follow. Nevertheless, as expected, they have many things in common, not least is which to eat only 3 meals a day. Richards goes so far as to strongly imply or state that snacking can create Type II diabetes. Not just candy, but even so-called "healthy snacks". If that sounds crazy, read the book and see if you don't change your mind. Speaking of diabetes, Dr. Fuhrman has reversed Type II diabetes in many individuals.)

I've been interested in nutrition since junior high school, and tried to construct perfect diets using a copy of USDA Handbook #8 which I had purchased. The level of understanding of nutrition now vs. what I learned in the 60's and 70's is breathtaking.

The Leptin book is not just about diet and health, but goes into considerable detail about hormonal feedback systems that must be properly 'tuned' in order to avoid pre-mature aging and all kinds of nasty diseases, as well as more marginal problems relating to mood and energy, both mental and physical. However, what's really nice about it is that you don't need to know all the details, you can just follow their 5 basic rules, for starters, and feel the difference. Also, the weight loss begins more or less immediately.

Trust me when I tell you, both the Richards' and Dr. Fuhrman would advise you to avoid pancakes, and bagels, alike!

roves shill

2nd March 2007 - 02:06 AM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 2 2007, 01:15 AM)

Hey Metamars!!!!!! Yeah, bageling. The story changes like the wind blows. DBB has dropped the snowflake book and picked up a menu. What are these people talking about DBB. Some are fireman. Why doesn't their expertise count when it comes to the towers, and yet it is all you have concerning #7?

EXPLOSIVES

Palpatane

2nd March 2007 - 02:07 AM

QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 1 2007, 06:36 PM)

so we are to believe that the floors are internally bageling past where the squibs are seen.

Maybe not. There were plenty of HVAC systems going from floor to floor.

lozenge124

2nd March 2007 - 02:53 AM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 2 2007, 01:51 AM)

lozenge124

Both DBB and I have pointed out to you that your "science" does not measure up, sorry if omeone pointing out your logical falacies hurts your feelings, but that's life in the big city.

"You cannot compile a wit out of two half-wits" - Joe Orton

NEU-FONZE

2nd March 2007 - 03:06 AM

Metamars:

On the Jenkins/Wood dispute:

I would do the calculation on a per kg basis in which case you require about 7 MJ per kg to vaporize iron or structural steel . This avoids the problem of considering how much of a tower was "vaporized".

The energy needed to "dustify" iron to 1 nanometer particles would be about 0.7 MJ per kg.

Therefore, to vaporize 1 tonne of WTC steel during a 10 second collapse would require an input power of 0.7 Gigawatts.

This sounds like an insurmountable obstacle.

However, consider that the ionosphere is an enormous energy storage system.

A simple solar storm injects up to 10^16 Joules of ionization energy into the upper atmosphere.

Pulsed ( ~ 20 MHz ) quarter wave "energy storage" antennas have been developed with RF power outputs of 1.2 GW available from resonators charged with 3kJ of stored energy. See Annales Geophysicae 23, 101, (2005)

Now what if the charged resonator WAS the upper atmosphere?

NF

metamars

2nd March 2007 - 08:50 AM

QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 2 2007, 03:06 AM)

So this is why the alien UFO's in "Independence Day" hovered inside the ionosphere!

QUOTE

Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.

Archimedes

Some people consider Archimedes the greatest mathematician of all time. Even more would definitely place him in the top 3, along with Newton and Gauss.

The similarity of the grandiosity of your propositions should therefore be somewhat flattering, however "God is is the details", and I suspect that the Original Mathematician would smile at your notions, knowing that mere mortals have financial considerations to which He, Himself, is not subject to. I mean, we're talking about some rather LARGE resonators, aren't we, and how would we even be able to use them, if we had them? Also, wouldn't it be easier to convert oceanic tidal energy to stored energy?

But perhaps you and Tesla know something we don't....

newton

2nd March 2007 - 10:57 AM

NIST engineer, john gross interview

shillbots is what i think i shall call all arthurs from now on.

NEU-FONZE

2nd March 2007 - 01:38 PM

Metamars:

Don't worry, I haven't become a "beamer"..... I'm just exploring the realm of the POSSIBLE as oppossed to the IMPOSSIBLE.

There are those who say that the famous Tunguska event of 1908 was a Tesla experiment gone wrong.

And there are those who believe the following:

In the late 1970s the Russians started hitting the US West Coast with a pulsed high energy microwave beam that became known as the Woodpecker signal. The signal appeared to originate from somewhere in the Ukraine.

The US eventually shutdown the Woodpecker transmitter by taking out its power supply - Chernobyl Unit 4....

NF

FactCheck

2nd March 2007 - 02:14 PM

QUOTE (metamars+Mar 2 2007, 01:31 AM)

When will he deal with it in a proper scientific journal? It's very well known that the journal of 911 studies is a bias journal made up of well known conspiracy theorists. It's headed by a man with a very, very poor research history.

www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

Palpatane

2nd March 2007 - 04:51 PM

From the other (now locked) thread:

Posted by Newton:

QUOTE

regarding WTC7:

"According to many real estate experts, no company has ever made such extensive alterations to a new office building in Manhattan".

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

Source: ny times

From the source, however, we can see that Newton left a significant part of the quote out.

It should read:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

From the source, however, we can see that Newton left a significant part of the quote out.

It should read:

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

Newton fails to understand a fundamental concept of structural engineering.

It’s all about the geometry.

Even if a structure is built with enough redundancy so that you can take out an entire floor, once you do so, that redundancy is no longer present. Taking out the floor significantly changes the geometry. The new geometry may be perfectly capable of supporting a typical office floor, but the original redundancy is lost.

Agent_X

2nd March 2007 - 06:37 PM

QUOTE (metamars+Mar 2 2007, 01:22 AM)

Also, there is an article by yet another civil engineer expressing doubt regarding the WTC collapses:

Why the towers fell: Two theories

By William Rice

Thanks for the link. When Rice states,

"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases"

he's confirming what was raised in the article Foxx posted some months ago:

Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check

FactCheck

2nd March 2007 - 07:23 PM

QUOTE (Agent_X+Mar 2 2007, 06:37 PM)

If this were true, why haven't they writen a paper to a respected scientific journal? The fact is B&V have a paper proving the collapse times were well within reason.

Many others also have shown the collapse times are well within reason.

www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Grumpy

2nd March 2007 - 07:40 PM

Agent_X

QUOTE

"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases"

he's confirming what was raised in the article Foxx posted some months ago:

And He and Foxx were absolutely wrong. Do you expect each floor being hit to halt the whole collapse, calculate whether enough energy has been applied to overcome it's resistence, subtract the resistence energy from the total and then(finally) let the process start up from scratch again??? The freefall speed did decrease(by about a third), this decrease represents the total resistent force available in the whole structure. The force of the falling block and other debris STARTED OUT close to an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE(10 times) MORE than the resistive capability of the remaining structure, it only got worse as it accelerated. So, no, the floors could not stop the collapse, it could just barely slow it down a little, mostly in the first few floor while energies were still relatively low. When the main mass hit the ground it was traveling close to 200 mph, as fast as an Indy car or stock car at Daytona. And that is the REAL physics of 9/11.

Grumpy

einsteen

2nd March 2007 - 07:53 PM

I think that an often maked misstake with the momentum argument is that some people forgot gravity, they take a collapsing mass M1 with speed v and simply think the output will be v M1/(M_total), momentum is only conserved when g=0.

newton

2nd March 2007 - 08:07 PM

QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 2 2007, 04:51 PM)

From the other (now locked) thread:

Posted by Newton:

From the source, however, we can see that Newton left a significant part of the quote out.

It should read:

Newton fails to understand a fundamental concept of structural engineering.

It’s all about the geometry.

Even if a structure is built with enough redundancy so that you can take out an entire floor, once you do so, that redundancy is no longer present. Taking out the floor significantly changes the geometry. The new geometry may be perfectly capable of supporting a typical office floor, but the original redundancy is lost.

QUOTE

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

like i said, did you READ the article?

you really are on the wrong page if you think engineers are going to do a 200 million dollar reno, putting perhaps hundreds of tons of equipment into the building, and REDUCE redunancy.

NEU-FONZE

2nd March 2007 - 08:14 PM

Einsteen:

Yes, that's a very good point, I was about to post something on the effect of GRAVITY but you beat me to it.

Nevertheless, even in a gravity field, you can still use M1.V1 = M2. V2 to consider the change in momentum during a single impact. If M1 is 14 floors and M2 is (M1 + 1 floor), the velocity change is relatively small, i.e. V2 is 14/15 of V1, and the combined mass, M2, may now be accelerated through another 3.7 meters.

NF

Palpatane

2nd March 2007 - 08:53 PM

QUOTE (newton+Mar 2 2007, 02:07 PM)

Clearly you fail to understand the realities of structural engineering and building construction.

It’s a moot point anyway since the removed floors were put back later when they moved the trading floors out.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05136.pdf

QUOTE

Most of the structural modifications were done to accommodate tenant requirements. Horizontal
members of the floor framing system were strengthened due to increased loading from high-density files. Strengthening of these beams and girders was achieved by welding cover plates to the bottom flanges, the underside of the top flanges, or both. In some cases, new beams were introduced to carry a portion of the new load.
Floor slabs were completely removed on the east side of the building to accommodate trading floors for Salomon Brothers, Inc., but were subsequently replaced when the trading floors were moved to another location. Columns in this area, which had twice the unsupported length after the slab removal, were reinforced. Other openings were cut into a few floor levels to accommodate new stairways connecting adjoining floors.
Web openings were cut through some beams and girders to allow passage of ductility work. In some cases, the beams or girders had to be reinforced in order to increase capacity.

The modifications to the building were extensive, widespread and conducted over the course of many years for many different reasons, mostly because the anticipated loads were greater than the building was designed for.

Some redundancy.

BTW, what do you think happened to the 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the Solomon USTs?

Palpatane

2nd March 2007 - 09:01 PM

Newton, Einsteen, Matamars, AgentX, Reasonwhy, Dont-Kalmelatefordinner, etc. and all other CTists out there.

I asked this question earlier, but it was buried and lost, so I’ll ask it again.

Why did “they” bother to notify and pull back the firemen from WTC 7?

“They” had just let 349 die in the collapse of the two towers, why did “they” care about the handful of firemen that would have been in WTC 7?

David B. Benson

2nd March 2007 - 10:04 PM

A little checking shows that David L. Griscom is/was a member of the troothers. He obviously has not bothered to check the relevant literature, in this case the Bazant + coauthors papers. Rather irresponsible of him to trot out his professional qualifications if he does not bother to apply the most basic responsibility when entering a new field: read the literature.

And being a troother he should be aware of Greening's work...

=================

roves shill --- I cannot watch videos, as I have said before.

=================

einsteen --- Take an empty cracker box and carefully cut, horizontally, through three sides, say about one third of the way down. Experiment with getting the top part to tilt about eight arc-degrees, hinged on the remaining, uncut side. What is the least energetic way for this to occur?

=================

Why are the collapse times for the two towers so similar? Let us use the very approximate equation for the progressive collapses of

d = (1/2)at^2

where d is the drop and a is the effective acceleration. We have

d = 415 meters
a = (2/3)g = 6.54 m/s^2

and so

t^2 = 126.9

giving

t = 11.3 seconds.

Notice that taking the square root is going to reduce the variability due to changing the effective acceleration. For example, if we use a = (3/4)g, we get

t = 10.6 seconds.

David B. Benson

2nd March 2007 - 11:39 PM

Collapse inevitability for WTC 1 --- The tilting of the top block gains sufficient kinetic energy so that collapse cannot be halted when the center of mass of the top block drops about 2 meters. This occurred at 0.8 seconds after sensible motion of the antenna tower.

At that time, the tilting was only 3 degrees and 36 minutes of arc and the south wall had dropped 4 meters, i.e., 1.1 stories.

newton

3rd March 2007 - 12:33 AM

QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 2 2007, 09:01 PM)

why did a fireman on the street say, "the building's about fall", and a cop say, "the building's about to BLOW UP", regarding wtc7?
that is FOREKNOWLEDGE.
search youtube for wtc7, and you'll find the broadcast footage.

why, even though you know, palpatine, why would you say the firefighers were pulling out, when they pulled out two hours earlier(3:30ish)? you really like repeating myths, don't you? there were NO FIREFIGHTERS to 'pull'. the building was left to burn(and probably would have burned itself into a skeleton over the course of a DAY OR TWO, if left alone.)

the BBC announcing REPEATEDLY (5:00 and 5:15) that the salomon bros. building had collapsed while it was clearly visible in the background. these are our 'trusted news sources'?
that is FOREKNOWLEDGE.
fact is, hundreds of people, if not thousands, WERE IN ON IT!, and STILL ARE!(although, they're having cold sweat nightmares, now, i'll bet) don't let incredulity overrule logic, folks. don't let 'low probability' morph into 'impossibility' in your mind. don't be prejudice. listen. look. THINK!

by the way, i FINALLY saw penn and teller's bullsht episode about 911 conspiracy theories. hilarious. pathetic. non-sequitor. i'd love to push penn down the stairs for saying anyone who questions the official story should be pushed down the stairs. asshle. fooking right-wing, NWO BLACK MAJIKIAN.

David B. Benson

3rd March 2007 - 12:50 AM

newton --- The battalion fire chief had decided by about 11:30 AM that fighting the fire in WTC 7 was hopeless. His conversation with Silverstein occurred a bit after noon. The last firemen left the vicinity of WTC 7 about one and a half hours before it fell.

Almost all of the first responders were warned to leave the area since the fire chiefs were concerned that the damaged building was going to collapse. Surely they told (almost) all the personnel why they were being pulled far back.

However, two policemen didn't get the word and had to run.

Grumpy

3rd March 2007 - 12:57 AM

newton

QUOTE

Because the fireman knew it was about to fall(it was obvious from shortly after the WTC 1 collapse) and the policeman had less understanding of the situation and misspoke.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Because the fireman knew it was about to fall(it was obvious from shortly after the WTC 1 collapse) and the policeman had less understanding of the situation and misspoke.

why, even though you know, palpatine, why would you say the firefighers were pulling out, when they pulled out two hours earlier(3:30ish)? you really like repeating myths, don't you? there were NO FIREFIGHTERS to 'pull'. the building was left to burn(and probably would have burned itself into a skeleton over the course of a DAY OR TWO, if left alone.)

What was being pulled were the rescue workers working in the danger zone of WTC 7 because the fire department KNEW the building was in danger of falling. And, no, the building would not have continued to stand, it would(and did) fall as expected.

QUOTE

the BBC announcing REPEATEDLY (5:00 and 5:15) that the salomon bros. building had collapsed while it was clearly visible in the background. these are our 'trusted news sources'?
that is FOREKNOWLEDGE.
fact is, hundreds of people, if not thousands, WERE IN ON IT!, and STILL ARE!(although, they're having cold sweat nightmares, now, i'll bet) don't let incredulity overrule logic, folks. don't let 'low probability' morph into 'impossibility' in your mind. don't be prejudice. listen. look. THINK!

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

No, this is just garbled communications. The BBC and and ABC simply recieved garbled messages that WTC 7 was about to fall and reported that it HAD fallen(by their own admission). There were many instances of such mistakes on 9/11, as there are at any disaster. In West Virginia it was falsly reported that all but one miner had been rescued when in fact all but one was found dead. They weren't "in on it", they were mistaken, that's all. Don't be so gullible.

by the way, i FINALLY saw penn and teller's bullsht episode about 911 conspiracy theories. hilarious. pathetic. non-sequitor. i'd love to push penn down the stairs for saying anyone who questions the official story should be pushed down the stairs. asshle. fooking right-wing, NWO BLACK MAJIKIAN.

Nobody likes to be told that what they believe is wrong, but what you believe IS wrong. Your mindless paranoia has poisoned your critical thinking ability to the point that you see every little misspoken word as proof, but every corrective explanation as lies or the gov't "getting to them. It makes everything you say worthless.

Grumpy

newton

3rd March 2007 - 01:28 AM

and your lapdogism has poisoned your critical thinking skills to their death.

that cop was NOT mispeaking. he was commanding.

the BBC broadcast slip-up was not a garbled message. it was a script read too early.

i am not paranoid. you should be.

roves shill

3rd March 2007 - 01:33 AM

QUOTE (newton+Mar 3 2007, 12:33 AM)

Hey Newt! I saw that P+T also. Pretty weak! You will love this.
RS

newton

3rd March 2007 - 02:35 AM

QUOTE (roves shill+Mar 3 2007, 01:33 AM)

Hey Newt! I saw that P+T also. Pretty weak! You will love this.
RS

good stuff. the virus is becoming epidemic. nice.

NEU-FONZE

3rd March 2007 - 02:45 AM

Steven Jones in flip-flop mode:

In his "Why Indeed?" paper dated Sept 2006 we read on page 25 that the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 ... led to "the pulverization of concrete to flour like powder."

But in his "Hard Evidence" paper/letter allegedly also written in Sept 2006 but since "updated and peer-reviewed" in Jan 2007, we read on page 8 that "the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust" but that "the WTC particles in greatest abundance are the super-coarse variety rather than fine particles, and significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble."

So what is it Dr. Jones?

"flour-like", (which means less than about 150 microns),

or

"a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder."

NF

David B. Benson

3rd March 2007 - 02:48 AM

NEU-FONZE --- It means he wrote a paper, making a claim, without first looking at enough evidence.

NEU-FONZE

3rd March 2007 - 02:52 AM

By the way...

Jones' flip-flop is not about scholarly science.... no,

it's more about going after Dr. Judy- but you may call me Dusty-Wood!

NF

David B. Benson

3rd March 2007 - 02:54 AM

Aha!

Grumpy

3rd March 2007 - 02:56 AM

newton

Famous words

"I am not a crook."

Richard Nixon

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Bill Clinton

"I am not paranoid"

newton

Grumpy

NEU-FONZE

3rd March 2007 - 03:08 AM

Well, we had the no-planers, but it looks like the truthers have now split into the "beamers" and the "no-beamers".

But if you look at all the new stuff in the latest Scholars Journal Letters, as linked by Metamars, you see no mention of thermite/themate, just a lot of no-beamer stuff.

Looks like Jones has nothing to do but "Knock on Wood."

NF

reasonwhy

3rd March 2007 - 12:46 PM

QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 2 2007, 01:01 PM)

And “ they” pay you to write this BS?

“They” obviously could not be sure the firemen would still be in the building when it collapsed and living firemen could report what they saw.

Remember, WTC 2 collapsed just when the firemen started reporting the fires were almost out.

Dead Firemen would have slowed down the 2 ½ week evidence destruction (removal of all the steel in world record time).

If it was common knowledge that WTC7 was going to collapse because of the bulge in the corner between floors 10 and 13, Why after 6 years has NIST not published the report?

Palpatane

3rd March 2007 - 12:52 PM

Newton, Roves’ shill, you have completely missed the point and have FAILED to answer my question.

Why were they forewarned that WTC 7 would be deliberately demolished (as you claim), when no such warnings were issued for WTC 1 & 2?

What was the logic behind that decision?

QUOTE (newton+Mar 2 2007, 06:33 PM)

fact is, hundreds of people, if not thousands, WERE IN ON IT!, and STILL ARE

Aw. . . you're just mad because they won't let you join the secret club.

reasonwhy

3rd March 2007 - 12:55 PM

QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 2 2007, 02:04 PM)

einsteen --- Take an empty cracker box and carefully cut, horizontally, through three sides, say about one third of the way down. Experiment with getting the top part to tilt about eight arc-degrees, hinged on the remaining, uncut side. What is the least energetic way for this to occur?

Then put pressure on the top of the box and see if you get the same results that the pseudoscientist claim you will (top wedge inside the bottom and then global collapse).

Palpatane

3rd March 2007 - 01:00 PM