QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 17 2007, 07:16 PM)
Arthur:
You are missing my point!
Grumpy is claiming that "Islamic barbarians" carried out 9/11 - a terrorist act - "in the name of Allah" and, remarkably, that Begin and the Irgun comitted the terrorist act of blowing up the St. Davids Hotel "in the name of Yahweh".
I don't think so!
If you follow Grumpy's logic the Irish catholics who call themselves the IRA comitted their terrorist acts in England and Northern Ireland in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary!
I think the reality is that 99 % of terrorist acts are committed for political or nationalistic reasons - mainly as retaliation for some kind of foreign occupation.
Besides, the true religious sentiments of the alleged 19 hijackers is unknown, inspite of all the Hollywood-hype about it!
In truth terrorism is as old as the first man to swing a club, at another man, to gain control over him. It is as old as time and for the same reason politics, to gain power to gain resources to secure power.
IT is the problem of living in a finite universe where resources are limited.
After all there were only so many fuels and so many possible combinations of those fuels in the twin towers.
Energy has always been the solution to what went on in the buildings even to how the buildings changed from asymmetrical collapse to symmetrical collapse.
There has to be an energy transference in the beams to allow for the shift from Asymmetrical, to Symmetrical.
You are missing my point!
Grumpy is claiming that "Islamic barbarians" carried out 9/11 - a terrorist act - "in the name of Allah" and, remarkably, that Begin and the Irgun comitted the terrorist act of blowing up the St. Davids Hotel "in the name of Yahweh".
I don't think so!
If you follow Grumpy's logic the Irish catholics who call themselves the IRA comitted their terrorist acts in England and Northern Ireland in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary!
I think the reality is that 99 % of terrorist acts are committed for political or nationalistic reasons - mainly as retaliation for some kind of foreign occupation.
Besides, the true religious sentiments of the alleged 19 hijackers is unknown, inspite of all the Hollywood-hype about it!
In truth terrorism is as old as the first man to swing a club, at another man, to gain control over him. It is as old as time and for the same reason politics, to gain power to gain resources to secure power.
IT is the problem of living in a finite universe where resources are limited.
After all there were only so many fuels and so many possible combinations of those fuels in the twin towers.
Energy has always been the solution to what went on in the buildings even to how the buildings changed from asymmetrical collapse to symmetrical collapse.
There has to be an energy transference in the beams to allow for the shift from Asymmetrical, to Symmetrical.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 17 2007, 02:16 PM)
Arthur:
You are missing my point!
Grumpy is claiming that "Islamic barbarians" carried out 9/11 - a terrorist act - "in the name of Allah" and, remarkably, that Begin and the Irgun comitted the terrorist act of blowing up the St. Davids Hotel "in the name of Yahweh".
I don't think so!
And I don't care.
Terrorism, the attacking of civilians to pursue a political objective, is WRONG, regardless of what the Terrorists later CLAIM as their JUSTIFICATION or MOTIVATION.
Arthur
You are missing my point!
Grumpy is claiming that "Islamic barbarians" carried out 9/11 - a terrorist act - "in the name of Allah" and, remarkably, that Begin and the Irgun comitted the terrorist act of blowing up the St. Davids Hotel "in the name of Yahweh".
I don't think so!
And I don't care.
Terrorism, the attacking of civilians to pursue a political objective, is WRONG, regardless of what the Terrorists later CLAIM as their JUSTIFICATION or MOTIVATION.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Apr 17 2007, 01:26 PM)
bildebergers meet secretly once a year(the definition of conspiracy). the guest list is eye-opening to say the least. it's not hard to find info on it if you care to look.
But NOTHING gets past newton.
Arthur
But NOTHING gets past newton.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 17 2007, 07:39 PM)
And I don't care.
Terrorism, the attacking of civilians to pursue a political objective, is WRONG, regardless of what the Terrorists later CLAIM as their JUSTIFICATION or MOTIVATION.
Arthur
Terrorism, the attacking of civilians to pursue a political objective, is WRONG, regardless of what the Terrorists later CLAIM as their JUSTIFICATION or MOTIVATION.
Arthur
It's also wrong when it's done at the state level.
How utterly boring...
Could we stick to sci-tech here and take our naive opinions about other matters to some other blog?
Could we stick to sci-tech here and take our naive opinions about other matters to some other blog?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 17 2007, 08:57 PM)
How utterly boring...
Could we stick to sci-tech here and take our naive opinions about other matters to some other blog?
Thanks David, we all deserve a good spanking now and then.
Could we stick to sci-tech here and take our naive opinions about other matters to some other blog?
Thanks David, we all deserve a good spanking now and then.
NEU-FONZE
All terrorists couch their barbarianism in the "highest" of human ideals. This helps them justify their evil to themselves, if to noone else.
All terrorists couch their barbarianism in the "highest" of human ideals. This helps them justify their evil to themselves, if to noone else.
Besides, the true religious sentiments of the alleged 19 hijackers is unknown, inspite of all the Hollywood-hype about it!
Simply not true, the terrorists own words(which they left behind) puts the lie to this statement. Their anticipation of virgins and young boys in Paradise is particularly illuminating as to their motivations.
I think all supernatural religious beliefs are a sign of a weak mind. At best it is delusional and discriminatory, at worst it is very dangerous indeed, especially when it is used to advance a wicked political agenda.
Grumpy
QUOTE
You are missing my point!
Grumpy is claiming that "Islamic barbarians" carried out 9/11 - a terrorist act - "in the name of Allah" and, remarkably, that Begin and the Irgun comitted the terrorist act of blowing up the St. Davids Hotel "in the name of Yahweh".
I don't think so!
Grumpy is claiming that "Islamic barbarians" carried out 9/11 - a terrorist act - "in the name of Allah" and, remarkably, that Begin and the Irgun comitted the terrorist act of blowing up the St. Davids Hotel "in the name of Yahweh".
I don't think so!
All terrorists couch their barbarianism in the "highest" of human ideals. This helps them justify their evil to themselves, if to noone else.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are missing my point! Grumpy is claiming that "Islamic barbarians" carried out 9/11 - a terrorist act - "in the name of Allah" and, remarkably, that Begin and the Irgun comitted the terrorist act of blowing up the St. Davids Hotel "in the name of Yahweh". I don't think so! |
All terrorists couch their barbarianism in the "highest" of human ideals. This helps them justify their evil to themselves, if to noone else.
Besides, the true religious sentiments of the alleged 19 hijackers is unknown, inspite of all the Hollywood-hype about it!
Simply not true, the terrorists own words(which they left behind) puts the lie to this statement. Their anticipation of virgins and young boys in Paradise is particularly illuminating as to their motivations.
I think all supernatural religious beliefs are a sign of a weak mind. At best it is delusional and discriminatory, at worst it is very dangerous indeed, especially when it is used to advance a wicked political agenda.
Grumpy
One last comment:
Were members of the French Resistance "freedom fighters" or "terrorists"?
And back on topic:
The chemical energies released in the fire-affected zones of WTC 1 & 2 were many times larger than the mechanical/gravitational energies. NIST scientists have underestimated the heating effects in the upper sections of the buildings because they neglect the available chemical energies. These "delta G" energies determine the ultimate temperatures of the structural elements.
If you don't believe me, ask Chainsaw!
Were members of the French Resistance "freedom fighters" or "terrorists"?
And back on topic:
The chemical energies released in the fire-affected zones of WTC 1 & 2 were many times larger than the mechanical/gravitational energies. NIST scientists have underestimated the heating effects in the upper sections of the buildings because they neglect the available chemical energies. These "delta G" energies determine the ultimate temperatures of the structural elements.
If you don't believe me, ask Chainsaw!
NCSTAR1-5G, page 254 (298 ordinal)
"The global simulation results indicate that the fireproofing thickness and the damage to the fireproofing due to aircraft impact was the single most important parameter that had the largest effect on the predicted thermal response of the structural elements in WTC 1."
"The global simulation results indicate that the fireproofing thickness and the damage to the fireproofing due to aircraft impact was the single most important parameter that had the largest effect on the predicted thermal response of the structural elements in WTC 1."
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 17 2007, 06:49 PM)
NIST scientists have underestimated the heating effects in the upper sections of the buildings because they neglect the available chemical energies. These "delta G" energies determine the ultimate temperatures of the structural elements.
Neu, do you really think the NIST scientists weren't aware that their model was CONSERVATIVE?
The CONSERVATIVE nature of their modeling is QUITE EVIDENT if you take the time to read the detail chapters of the NIST report.
A good example is what David just posted. Even though it was clear that the fireproofing thickness and the damage to the fireproofing due to aircraft impact was the single most important parameter that had the largest effect on the predicted thermal response of the structural elements, NIST only modeled that it was removed where there was DIRECT IMPACT with aircraft debris of sufficient intensity to disloge it.
Yet NIST knew that the insulation did not adhere that well and the impact vibrations/torque would certainly have knocked more off, but still they did not factor that into the model.
Arthur
Neu, do you really think the NIST scientists weren't aware that their model was CONSERVATIVE?
The CONSERVATIVE nature of their modeling is QUITE EVIDENT if you take the time to read the detail chapters of the NIST report.
A good example is what David just posted. Even though it was clear that the fireproofing thickness and the damage to the fireproofing due to aircraft impact was the single most important parameter that had the largest effect on the predicted thermal response of the structural elements, NIST only modeled that it was removed where there was DIRECT IMPACT with aircraft debris of sufficient intensity to disloge it.
Yet NIST knew that the insulation did not adhere that well and the impact vibrations/torque would certainly have knocked more off, but still they did not factor that into the model.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 17 2007, 11:49 PM)
NIST scientists have underestimated the heating effects in the upper sections of the buildings because they neglect the available chemical energies.
Well, they compensated for this somewhat by using the worst-case fire scenario for both towers, rather than the best-case.
However, they are research engineers, not chemists nor statisticians. And it appears that they didn't know enough to consult either chemists nor statisticians. Well, in the wind loading study, somebody managed to know enough about the statistical properties of the so-called canyon effect to be able to show that Skilling and Robertson slightly under-designed the towers for the maximum designed wind loading of 98 mph. Otherwise, as blue74 pointed out some time ago, they didn't use enough Bayesian reasoning to properly treat their very small supply of steel samples...
Well, they compensated for this somewhat by using the worst-case fire scenario for both towers, rather than the best-case.
However, they are research engineers, not chemists nor statisticians. And it appears that they didn't know enough to consult either chemists nor statisticians. Well, in the wind loading study, somebody managed to know enough about the statistical properties of the so-called canyon effect to be able to show that Skilling and Robertson slightly under-designed the towers for the maximum designed wind loading of 98 mph. Otherwise, as blue74 pointed out some time ago, they didn't use enough Bayesian reasoning to properly treat their very small supply of steel samples...
Nobody is perfect, but I'll take the NIST study ANY DAY as a FINE example of our money WELL SPENT.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 18 2007, 12:09 AM)
Nobody is perfect, but I'll take the NIST study ANY DAY as a FINE example of our money WELL SPENT.
I agree, although their decision to be so conservative at every stage is surely a result of being trained as engineers.
The revision of the way to do maximum wind load studies is, IMO, in itself worth the cost of the entire effort.
I agree, although their decision to be so conservative at every stage is surely a result of being trained as engineers.
The revision of the way to do maximum wind load studies is, IMO, in itself worth the cost of the entire effort.
Earlier there was a question about the proportion of the total load carried by the core. From Table 8-2 of NCSTAR1-6, page 242 (324 ordinal), we have for the intact WTC 1 that the proportion was 0.465 at floor 98 and from Table 8--3, same page, that the proportion was 0.410 at floor 105.
From Table 8--5, page 258 (340 ordinal), the proportion for the intact WTC 2 was 0.495 at floor 83.
So there does not appear to be a unique answer to the question...
From Table 8--5, page 258 (340 ordinal), the proportion for the intact WTC 2 was 0.495 at floor 83.
So there does not appear to be a unique answer to the question...
Sorry if this is already posted, but the latest research by Professor Jones is talked about in the last 7 links, below. Professor Jones describes the spectrosopic *signatures of the micro-spheres as "smoking gun" type evidence, and much of it has never been shown, before.
Rather than trying to write the results up here, I refer you to the videos of my talk at UT-Austin, which are already available on-line at YOU-Tube (thanks, someone!). You may find the earlier part of the talk useful also, in which I show the result of poured-out molten iron+sulfur (from thermate) -- and what this molten flow looks like, compared to the So Tower flow.
pt.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDiL_q1m67k
pt.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45p19_-CS5I
pt.3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0XSPPuxglI
But in this thread I would focus on a discussion of the WTC microsphere data since this is so new and I would appreciate feedback. Please start with part 4 to get a little background, then follow on. Each segment is fairly short:
pt.4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGudMVKswVM
pt.5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggc0jT19Pj4
pt.6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ9jjZ8Fep4
pt.7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0
pt.8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNGOqSVLgJw
pt.9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfh5S_FhR4s
pt.10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkoTE3S5xKI
If anybody out there knows qualified individuals (such as physical chemists) who might have comments, please forward them these links, and ask them to take up Professor Jones on his request for feedback.
* Not sure he used the word "spectroscopic"
QUOTE
Rather than trying to write the results up here, I refer you to the videos of my talk at UT-Austin, which are already available on-line at YOU-Tube (thanks, someone!). You may find the earlier part of the talk useful also, in which I show the result of poured-out molten iron+sulfur (from thermate) -- and what this molten flow looks like, compared to the So Tower flow.
pt.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDiL_q1m67k
pt.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45p19_-CS5I
pt.3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0XSPPuxglI
But in this thread I would focus on a discussion of the WTC microsphere data since this is so new and I would appreciate feedback. Please start with part 4 to get a little background, then follow on. Each segment is fairly short:
pt.4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGudMVKswVM
pt.5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggc0jT19Pj4
pt.6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ9jjZ8Fep4
pt.7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0
pt.8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNGOqSVLgJw
pt.9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfh5S_FhR4s
pt.10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkoTE3S5xKI
If anybody out there knows qualified individuals (such as physical chemists) who might have comments, please forward them these links, and ask them to take up Professor Jones on his request for feedback.
* Not sure he used the word "spectroscopic"
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 18 2007, 12:04 AM)
Neu, do you really think the NIST scientists weren't aware that their model was CONSERVATIVE?
The CONSERVATIVE nature of their modeling is QUITE EVIDENT if you take the time to read the detail chapters of the NIST report.
A good example is what David just posted. Even though it was clear that the fireproofing thickness and the damage to the fireproofing due to aircraft impact was the single most important parameter that had the largest effect on the predicted thermal response of the structural elements, NIST only modeled that it was removed where there was DIRECT IMPACT with aircraft debris of sufficient intensity to disloge it.
Yet NIST knew that the insulation did not adhere that well and the impact vibrations/torque would certainly have knocked more off, but still they did not factor that into the model.
Arthur
I have to agree with NEU-FONZE after what I have seen and done, Nist is like a cigarette lighter when a blow torch was used.
The temperatures that NIST models are based on hydrocarbons that is the problem there are other fuels that would produce substantially more heat.
PS. D.B.B you need to use a lot of the energy that goes into the concrete somewhere else , as it would not be needed after intense heating.
This is old concrete we are talking about not new, that is the problem, it has suffered aged effects such as sulfate attack in some parts of the buildings.
It is about 4 inches thick and is composed partially of gypsum, and gypsum breaks down when heated into plaster of Paris, it will also release water and any contained acids when heated.
IT literally decomposes into a powder as does the drywall on the walls.
Have to go I just found out about the zinc salt battery reaction that can make a rotten egg smell when combined with sulfur.
That smell in small amounts smells like matches and can be mistaken for explosives. It in small amounts is a gun powder like smell.
Nist basically did not take into account age in this building and a POSSIBLE big natural screw up.
I will tell you more when I can but it may have been impossible to test for these reactions in the debris because all the materials are already in the buildings and would be found, it is when you put the building back together and experiment on the reactions of the components in the fires, that you get the reactions.
I am not talking about totally discounting NIST they have added greatly to My understanding, but it does need more work, I can not comment further.
I am now not looking into this as a conspiracy issue but as a safety issue, I would not want a building to collapse out from under any of you, not even the CTers.
The CONSERVATIVE nature of their modeling is QUITE EVIDENT if you take the time to read the detail chapters of the NIST report.
A good example is what David just posted. Even though it was clear that the fireproofing thickness and the damage to the fireproofing due to aircraft impact was the single most important parameter that had the largest effect on the predicted thermal response of the structural elements, NIST only modeled that it was removed where there was DIRECT IMPACT with aircraft debris of sufficient intensity to disloge it.
Yet NIST knew that the insulation did not adhere that well and the impact vibrations/torque would certainly have knocked more off, but still they did not factor that into the model.
Arthur
I have to agree with NEU-FONZE after what I have seen and done, Nist is like a cigarette lighter when a blow torch was used.
The temperatures that NIST models are based on hydrocarbons that is the problem there are other fuels that would produce substantially more heat.
PS. D.B.B you need to use a lot of the energy that goes into the concrete somewhere else , as it would not be needed after intense heating.
This is old concrete we are talking about not new, that is the problem, it has suffered aged effects such as sulfate attack in some parts of the buildings.
It is about 4 inches thick and is composed partially of gypsum, and gypsum breaks down when heated into plaster of Paris, it will also release water and any contained acids when heated.
IT literally decomposes into a powder as does the drywall on the walls.
Have to go I just found out about the zinc salt battery reaction that can make a rotten egg smell when combined with sulfur.
That smell in small amounts smells like matches and can be mistaken for explosives. It in small amounts is a gun powder like smell.
Nist basically did not take into account age in this building and a POSSIBLE big natural screw up.
I will tell you more when I can but it may have been impossible to test for these reactions in the debris because all the materials are already in the buildings and would be found, it is when you put the building back together and experiment on the reactions of the components in the fires, that you get the reactions.
I am not talking about totally discounting NIST they have added greatly to My understanding, but it does need more work, I can not comment further.
I am now not looking into this as a conspiracy issue but as a safety issue, I would not want a building to collapse out from under any of you, not even the CTers.
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 18 2007, 02:06 AM)
Sorry if this is already posted, but the latest research by Professor Jones is talked about in the last 7 links, below. Professor Jones describes the spectrosopic *signatures of the micro-spheres as "smoking gun" type evidence, and much of it has never been shown, before.
If anybody out there knows qualified individuals (such as physical chemists) who might have comments, please forward them these links, and ask them to take up Professor Jones on his request for feedback.
* Not sure he used the word "spectroscopic"
That could be evidence of age in the buildings as well as thermate.
Age also seems more logical, even buildings age over time.
If anybody out there knows qualified individuals (such as physical chemists) who might have comments, please forward them these links, and ask them to take up Professor Jones on his request for feedback.
* Not sure he used the word "spectroscopic"
That could be evidence of age in the buildings as well as thermate.
Age also seems more logical, even buildings age over time.
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 16 2007, 11:38 PM)
It seems likely that some of the sounds in the Hoboken video are a result of the collapse. The pre-collapse sounds on the other hand have no visible event to associate them with. To make the leap that they must be sounds of pre-planted explosives is irresponsible.
I disagree. The pre-collapse sounds are quite low, rumbling, and loud.
What were they? In view of the fact the collapse began right after them, is it illogical to associate them to the sounds of explosions?
To ignore this is what would be irresponsible to my way of thinking.
However, you are entitled to your view (and you have made a valid point by pointing out the other videos' sounds {or should I say, lack of}), and I am entitled to mine.
Since we are repeating ourselves now, we probably should let it go until there is more defining data.
Thanks, Capracus.
THE WORD OF GOD IS LIVING AND ACTIVE AND SHARPER THAN A TWO EDGED SWORD
AND PIERCING AS FAR AS THE DIVISION OF SOUL AND SPIRIT
OF BOTH JOINTS AND MARROW
AND ABLE TO JUDGE THE THOUGHTS AND INTENTIONS OF THE HEART
I disagree. The pre-collapse sounds are quite low, rumbling, and loud.
What were they? In view of the fact the collapse began right after them, is it illogical to associate them to the sounds of explosions?
To ignore this is what would be irresponsible to my way of thinking.
However, you are entitled to your view (and you have made a valid point by pointing out the other videos' sounds {or should I say, lack of}), and I am entitled to mine.
Since we are repeating ourselves now, we probably should let it go until there is more defining data.
Thanks, Capracus.
THE WORD OF GOD IS LIVING AND ACTIVE AND SHARPER THAN A TWO EDGED SWORD
AND PIERCING AS FAR AS THE DIVISION OF SOUL AND SPIRIT
OF BOTH JOINTS AND MARROW
AND ABLE TO JUDGE THE THOUGHTS AND INTENTIONS OF THE HEART
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 17 2007, 09:49 PM)
I disagree. The pre-collapse sounds are quite low, rumbling, and loud.
What were they? In view of the fact the collapse began right after them, is it illogical to associate them to the sounds of explosions?
Yes,
Listen to a few CDs.
The sound of the major explosions is not LOW and RUMBLING.
They are invariably SHARP CRACKS due to the supersonic nature of high explosives.
For your comparison:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com
Try listening to the various demolitions they have videos of (under the buildings tab)
Arthur
What were they? In view of the fact the collapse began right after them, is it illogical to associate them to the sounds of explosions?
Yes,
Listen to a few CDs.
The sound of the major explosions is not LOW and RUMBLING.
They are invariably SHARP CRACKS due to the supersonic nature of high explosives.
For your comparison:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com
Try listening to the various demolitions they have videos of (under the buildings tab)
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 18 2007, 04:18 AM)
Yes,
Listen to a few CDs.
The sound of the major explosions is not LOW and RUMBLING.
They are invariably SHARP CRACKS due to the supersonic nature of high explosives.
For your comparison:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com
Try listening to the various demolitions they have videos of (under the buildings tab)
Arthur
And the sound of thermate is sure to sound just like a sharp crack, right? It was pointed out to you long, long ago that the degree of explosiveness of a nano-super thermate should be something that one can tailor to just the degree one pleases. That surely impacts on the sound that such a sutting device makes.
Your convenient forgetfulness is duly noted.
Listen to a few CDs.
The sound of the major explosions is not LOW and RUMBLING.
They are invariably SHARP CRACKS due to the supersonic nature of high explosives.
For your comparison:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com
Try listening to the various demolitions they have videos of (under the buildings tab)
Arthur
And the sound of thermate is sure to sound just like a sharp crack, right? It was pointed out to you long, long ago that the degree of explosiveness of a nano-super thermate should be something that one can tailor to just the degree one pleases. That surely impacts on the sound that such a sutting device makes.
Your convenient forgetfulness is duly noted.
Although I don't say this has been used there indeed seems to exist a thermite cutter mechanism (not only a theoretical possibility), see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
Interesting to see the shape of the cut column after the detonation.
From what I've read about corrosion in concrete, it usually involves external infiltration of corrosive elements. Thinking about the composite slab floors in the towers, what would be the routes of infiltration? Or, were corrosive elements part of the original concrete mix? There are openings in the steel decks for the truss knuckles. Could cracks develop at the interface of the knuckles and slab? I would guess that a lot of moist air and carbon dioxide would collect in the upper ceiling spaces. I wonder if separations between the steel decks and the slab develop over time? Could the knuckles have been subjected to corrosion over the years and in turn weakened the trusses?
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 18 2007, 11:09 AM)
From what I've read about corrosion in concrete, it usually involves external infiltration of corrosive elements. Thinking about the composite slab floors in the towers, what would be the routes of infiltration? Or, were corrosive elements part of the original concrete mix? There are openings in the steel decks for the truss knuckles. Could cracks develop at the interface of the knuckles and slab? I would guess that a lot of moist air and carbon dioxide would collect in the upper ceiling spaces. I wonder if separations between the steel decks and the slab develop over time? Could the knuckles have been subjected to corrosion over the years and in turn weakened the trusses?
The most common corrosive element is SO2, mixed with moisture to from sulfuric acid.
The compounds in the photo are calcium sulfate, water, calcium chloride,Sulfuric acid, and if the calcium chloride and sulfuric acid contact a metal with which to react, dissolved hydrogen. The gypsum actually stores more and more hydrogen as it builds up over time. Since sulfuric acid can go right though it.
It is similar to what happens in a soda bottle with defused gasses CO2.
When heated the gypsum gives up the moisture releasing any defused gas.
It can actually melt the sulfates-Gypsum and allow for more rapid chemical reactions. That is one attack on the metal, I believe NEU, has found a couple others.
I do not know where the SO2 would be from, no one would be dumb enough to store high sulfur petroleum compounds in vented cans, on Mechanical floors, where generators were at, for decades would they?
NO one would be dumb enough to store high sulfur diesel in a building in multi thousand gallon tanks now would they?
The most common corrosive element is SO2, mixed with moisture to from sulfuric acid.
The compounds in the photo are calcium sulfate, water, calcium chloride,Sulfuric acid, and if the calcium chloride and sulfuric acid contact a metal with which to react, dissolved hydrogen. The gypsum actually stores more and more hydrogen as it builds up over time. Since sulfuric acid can go right though it.
It is similar to what happens in a soda bottle with defused gasses CO2.
When heated the gypsum gives up the moisture releasing any defused gas.
It can actually melt the sulfates-Gypsum and allow for more rapid chemical reactions. That is one attack on the metal, I believe NEU, has found a couple others.
I do not know where the SO2 would be from, no one would be dumb enough to store high sulfur petroleum compounds in vented cans, on Mechanical floors, where generators were at, for decades would they?
NO one would be dumb enough to store high sulfur diesel in a building in multi thousand gallon tanks now would they?
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Apr 18 2007, 06:31 AM)
The most common corrosive element is SO2, mixed with moisture to from sulfuric acid.
I believe you will find that SO2 reacts with H20 to form H2SO3, Sulfurous Acid, not H2SO4, Sulfuric Acid. Sulfurous Acid is significantly less reactive.
Arthur
I believe you will find that SO2 reacts with H20 to form H2SO3, Sulfurous Acid, not H2SO4, Sulfuric Acid. Sulfurous Acid is significantly less reactive.
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 18 2007, 04:32 AM)
And the sound of thermate is sure to sound just like a sharp crack, right? It was pointed out to you long, long ago that the degree of explosiveness of a nano-super thermate should be something that one can tailor to just the degree one pleases. That surely impacts on the sound that such a sutting device makes.
Your convenient forgetfulness is duly noted.
Your repetition of an UNSUPPORTED hypothesis is duly noted.
Yeah, it was "pointed out" by CT believers, but then like you, they also point out that the dust was a pyroclastic flow, that beam weapons vaporized steel and that there may have been suitcase nukes in the basement.
There appears to be NO EXOTIC MEANS of destruction of the towers that DOESN'T agree with some faction of the CT'er crowd.
You guys are just WAY SHORT ON ANY PROOF of any kind, nor does any of your suggested ALTERNATIVE means of destroying the towers match with the VISUAL EVIDENCE of the SLOW BOWING in of the perimeter columns.
Arthur
Your convenient forgetfulness is duly noted.
Your repetition of an UNSUPPORTED hypothesis is duly noted.
Yeah, it was "pointed out" by CT believers, but then like you, they also point out that the dust was a pyroclastic flow, that beam weapons vaporized steel and that there may have been suitcase nukes in the basement.
There appears to be NO EXOTIC MEANS of destruction of the towers that DOESN'T agree with some faction of the CT'er crowd.
You guys are just WAY SHORT ON ANY PROOF of any kind, nor does any of your suggested ALTERNATIVE means of destroying the towers match with the VISUAL EVIDENCE of the SLOW BOWING in of the perimeter columns.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 18 2007, 01:48 PM)
Your repetition of an UNSUPPORTED hypothesis is duly noted.
Yeah, it was "pointed out" by CT believers, but then like you, they also point out that the dust was a pyroclastic flow, that beam weapons vaporized steel and that there may have been suitcase nukes in the basement.
There appears to be NO EXOTIC MEANS of destruction of the towers that DOESN'T agree with some faction of the CT'er crowd.
You guys are just WAY SHORT ON ANY PROOF of any kind, nor does any of your suggested ALTERNATIVE means of destroying the towers match with the VISUAL EVIDENCE of the SLOW BOWING in of the perimeter columns.
Arthur
Arthur, you have it all wrong. Get on board...
It was a nuke. a specially designed nuke that had no radioactive fallout.
No, no, it was detonation cord cleverly disguised as computer cable (CAT5).
No, no, it was specially designed thermite.
No, no, it was a beam weapon from space.
I personally think it was Elmer Fudd.
and the incriminating evidence is he who made that famous statement...
"Come on out you wascally wabbit, or I'll Bwast you out"...
and he did....
MM
Yeah, it was "pointed out" by CT believers, but then like you, they also point out that the dust was a pyroclastic flow, that beam weapons vaporized steel and that there may have been suitcase nukes in the basement.
There appears to be NO EXOTIC MEANS of destruction of the towers that DOESN'T agree with some faction of the CT'er crowd.
You guys are just WAY SHORT ON ANY PROOF of any kind, nor does any of your suggested ALTERNATIVE means of destroying the towers match with the VISUAL EVIDENCE of the SLOW BOWING in of the perimeter columns.
Arthur
Arthur, you have it all wrong. Get on board...
It was a nuke. a specially designed nuke that had no radioactive fallout.
No, no, it was detonation cord cleverly disguised as computer cable (CAT5).
No, no, it was specially designed thermite.
No, no, it was a beam weapon from space.
I personally think it was Elmer Fudd.
and the incriminating evidence is he who made that famous statement...
"Come on out you wascally wabbit, or I'll Bwast you out"...
and he did....
MM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 18 2007, 01:32 PM)
I believe you will find that SO2 reacts with H20 to form H2SO3, Sulfurous Acid, not H2SO4, Sulfuric Acid. Sulfurous Acid is significantly less reactive.
Arthur
SO2, +O +H2O, or SO3+H2O caused by SO2 reacting over time with atmoshereic oxygen to form SO3.
Sorry I did not explain the full process.
Arthur
SO2, +O +H2O, or SO3+H2O caused by SO2 reacting over time with atmoshereic oxygen to form SO3.
Sorry I did not explain the full process.
adoucette
Isn't it amazing the theories you can come up with once you discard a reliance on that pesky stuff called EVIDENCE? Once you throw out the need to conform with reality then any number of outlandish and paranoid scenarios suddenly become plausable. Religions used to have a lock on this type of...ahem...logic. Now it seems whole segments of our society have succombed to this"easy button" of scientific pursuit.
Fine, let the wind blow right through their useless brains, but they needn't come whining when their Oncologist recomends blootletting to cure their cancer, it is, after all, the end result of their STUPIDITY.
Grumpy
Isn't it amazing the theories you can come up with once you discard a reliance on that pesky stuff called EVIDENCE? Once you throw out the need to conform with reality then any number of outlandish and paranoid scenarios suddenly become plausable. Religions used to have a lock on this type of...ahem...logic. Now it seems whole segments of our society have succombed to this"easy button" of scientific pursuit.
Fine, let the wind blow right through their useless brains, but they needn't come whining when their Oncologist recomends blootletting to cure their cancer, it is, after all, the end result of their STUPIDITY.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 18 2007, 10:03 AM)
adoucette
Isn't it amazing the theories you can come up with once you discard a reliance on that pesky stuff called EVIDENCE? Once you throw out the need to conform with reality then any number of outlandish and paranoid scenarios suddenly become plausable.
I think its actually WORSE than that.
From what I can tell, many of the CT'ers we've argued with started out with the belief that the towers fell "Too Fast" for it to be a gravity driven collapse.
Because it was suppossedly too fast, they concluded that there had to be a form of CD employed and thus it had to have been an INSIDE JOB as "19 Arabs in a cave" couldn't have pulled off a CD.
The problem is the towers DIDN'T fall too fast.
So even though their original perception that made them come to a CONCLUSION was shown to be FALSE, they have STUCK with their CONCLUSION.
That's just PERVERSE.
What's even MORE PERVERSE is that after the "fast as free fall" failed, they have tried DESPERATELY to come up with reasons to support their original FALSELY ARRIVED AT CONCLUSION.
So for CT'ers its become quite clear, they KNOW the RESULT they are trying to prove, they just can't find any PROOF to support it.
Gotta be fustrating.
Witness BS posts about reflections of Firetrucks in BMW windows and Sound Analysis from Hoboken as examples of DESPERATION.
Arthur
Isn't it amazing the theories you can come up with once you discard a reliance on that pesky stuff called EVIDENCE? Once you throw out the need to conform with reality then any number of outlandish and paranoid scenarios suddenly become plausable.
I think its actually WORSE than that.
From what I can tell, many of the CT'ers we've argued with started out with the belief that the towers fell "Too Fast" for it to be a gravity driven collapse.
Because it was suppossedly too fast, they concluded that there had to be a form of CD employed and thus it had to have been an INSIDE JOB as "19 Arabs in a cave" couldn't have pulled off a CD.
The problem is the towers DIDN'T fall too fast.
So even though their original perception that made them come to a CONCLUSION was shown to be FALSE, they have STUCK with their CONCLUSION.
That's just PERVERSE.
What's even MORE PERVERSE is that after the "fast as free fall" failed, they have tried DESPERATELY to come up with reasons to support their original FALSELY ARRIVED AT CONCLUSION.
So for CT'ers its become quite clear, they KNOW the RESULT they are trying to prove, they just can't find any PROOF to support it.
Gotta be fustrating.
Witness BS posts about reflections of Firetrucks in BMW windows and Sound Analysis from Hoboken as examples of DESPERATION.
Arthur
the towers were blown. it's been proven over and over.
simple denial does not change it.
they did fall too fast.
everybody who was there heard the explosions.
sound analysis is science, not desperation.
willful ignorance is not science, but is desperation. you OCTs have given up
dr. greening is the only OCT who realises you blind bats need a new mousetrap.
it won't be good enough.
simple denial does not change it.
they did fall too fast.
everybody who was there heard the explosions.
sound analysis is science, not desperation.
willful ignorance is not science, but is desperation. you OCTs have given up
dr. greening is the only OCT who realises you blind bats need a new mousetrap.
it won't be good enough.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 18 2007, 04:48 PM)
the towers were blown. it's been proven over and over.
simple denial does not change it.
they did fall too fast.
everybody who was there heard the explosions.
sound analysis is science, not desperation.
willful ignorance is not science, but is desperation. you OCTs have given up
dr. greening is the only OCT who realises you blind bats need a new mousetrap.
it won't be good enough.
Actually it explains more of the unusual events than thermites-thermate, or space beam weapons do.
It is also perfectly natural to the buildings and could have caused significant heating of the ruble pile beyond that produced By hydrocarbons.
simple denial does not change it.
they did fall too fast.
everybody who was there heard the explosions.
sound analysis is science, not desperation.
willful ignorance is not science, but is desperation. you OCTs have given up
dr. greening is the only OCT who realises you blind bats need a new mousetrap.
it won't be good enough.
Actually it explains more of the unusual events than thermites-thermate, or space beam weapons do.
It is also perfectly natural to the buildings and could have caused significant heating of the ruble pile beyond that produced By hydrocarbons.
It was not my intention to start an OT sub thread, but I couldn't let Arthur's comment pass.
So one more thing:
The Israelis have been employing terrorism against the British, the Americans and even Jews for decades. To dismiss that they could not have been involved whilst claiming anti-semitism is absurd.
Does this, in itself, prove that the Israeli military intelligence infrastructure was in some way involved in 9/11? Of course not. But it proves propensity, since this infrastructure has a long record of conducting terrorist attacks – not only against U.S. and British targets but also against Jews ... What brings this propensity into the limelight of a proper contemporary analysis of 9/11 are a number of facts ... proving beyond doubt the reality of some sort of dubious Israeli involvement ... it is clear that the facts speak for themselves in warranting a further inquiry into an Israeli linkage to the September 11 attacks. Such an inquiry is clearly legitimate based on the facts.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html#_Toc11659708
BTW, the term "terrorist" came into modern usage in the 1940s after it was popularized in the British press in response to Jewish activities against the British in Palestine.
(and just a correction Fonzie, that was the King David Hotel)
So one more thing:
The Israelis have been employing terrorism against the British, the Americans and even Jews for decades. To dismiss that they could not have been involved whilst claiming anti-semitism is absurd.
QUOTE
Does this, in itself, prove that the Israeli military intelligence infrastructure was in some way involved in 9/11? Of course not. But it proves propensity, since this infrastructure has a long record of conducting terrorist attacks – not only against U.S. and British targets but also against Jews ... What brings this propensity into the limelight of a proper contemporary analysis of 9/11 are a number of facts ... proving beyond doubt the reality of some sort of dubious Israeli involvement ... it is clear that the facts speak for themselves in warranting a further inquiry into an Israeli linkage to the September 11 attacks. Such an inquiry is clearly legitimate based on the facts.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html#_Toc11659708
BTW, the term "terrorist" came into modern usage in the 1940s after it was popularized in the British press in response to Jewish activities against the British in Palestine.
(and just a correction Fonzie, that was the King David Hotel)
newton
Then you will not have any problem citing the peer reviewed papers outlining that proof.
Then you will not have any problem citing the peer reviewed papers outlining that proof.
they did fall too fast.
No, they did not.
Everyone there heard SOUNDS, none of the sounds were remotely simular to explosives.
Faked soundtracks are simply fraud, but, to you, are perfectly acceptable in the name of "trooth". This is what really desperate people are known to do. Pesky ol' facts getting in the way of "trooth"??? Ignore those facts, make it up as you go along and, when all else fails, LIE YOUR *** OFF. It won't change the FACT that you are spewing BS, but it might eventually discourage those who have to wade through it on their way to the real science.
Grumpy
The whistling sound you hear is the wind blowing through your perfectly empty head
the towers were blown. it's been proven over and over.
simple denial does not change it.
Which is why poor Dr. Frank Greening (NEU-FONZE) did as best as he could for as long as he could...but NOW even he is fleeing from the words in his own "intelligent thermite creation" article SINCE THE "15 micron diameter iron spheres" have the "chain of custody" preserved AND ARE indicative of "commercially-prepared thermate".
People who seized the evidence and then destroyed it still could not avoid implicating themselves for murder
Which is why poor Dr. Frank Greening (NEU-FONZE) did as best as he could for as long as he could...but NOW even he is fleeing from the words in his own "intelligent thermite creation" article SINCE THE "15 micron diameter iron spheres" have the "chain of custody" preserved AND ARE indicative of "commercially-prepared thermate".
People who seized the evidence and then destroyed it still could not avoid implicating themselves for murder
they did fall too fast.
..and again, that is why poor Dr. Greening flees from Gordon Ross's critique of his work... using Greening's own figures, factors, and assumptions AND EXTENDING Greening's timeline...
...shows that 17.5 seconds would have been the theoretical minimum "collapse time"
everybody who was there heard the explosions.
William Rodriguez...explosions first from below... heard the plane crash later up above
William Rodriguez...explosions first from below... heard the plane crash later up above
sound analysis is science, not desperation.
..as is "seismic analysis"...the murderers COULD NOT help but bust themselves even though they seized and destroyed all that evidence
willful ignorance is not science, but is desperation. you OCTs have given up
Dr Frank Greening has given up... in spite of what he maintained to Chainsaw... Notice how he won't associate himself with Chainsaw's, MaskedMarauder's, Arthur's, Grumpy's conduct/explanations
Dr Frank Greening has given up... in spite of what he maintained to Chainsaw... Notice how he won't associate himself with Chainsaw's, MaskedMarauder's, Arthur's, Grumpy's conduct/explanations
dr. greening is the only OCT who realises you blind bats need a new mousetrap.
..and look at the humiliation he was subjected to in the process of having to run away from the words in his own published works...
... as well as agonizingly look at the conduct of those who would shill for the murders of his fellow britons(Arthur, Grumpy, Chainsaw, MaskedMarauder,etc)
it won't be good enough.
Indeed it won't...it'll ONLY GET WORSE... see how Jehovah God himself made the building at 19 Rector St. Building disappear in Part III of this 7:56 video...the last 2 minutes 30 seconds deal with....
...an angry Jehovah making a buiding disappear on 9/11 as a warning to Grumpy and Arthur to quit BSing.
Arthur and Grumpy are not listening and will not be able to BS St. Peter into letting them pass thorugh the Pearly Gates on Judgement Day.
I have NO OPINION on Parts I & II of the video...but Part III is just "incompetence"
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8442
QUOTE
the towers were blown. it's been proven over and over.
simple denial does not change it.
simple denial does not change it.
Then you will not have any problem citing the peer reviewed papers outlining that proof.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the towers were blown. it's been proven over and over. simple denial does not change it. |
Then you will not have any problem citing the peer reviewed papers outlining that proof.
they did fall too fast.
No, they did not.
QUOTE
everybody who was there heard the explosions.
sound analysis is science, not desperation.
sound analysis is science, not desperation.
Everyone there heard SOUNDS, none of the sounds were remotely simular to explosives.
Faked soundtracks are simply fraud, but, to you, are perfectly acceptable in the name of "trooth". This is what really desperate people are known to do. Pesky ol' facts getting in the way of "trooth"??? Ignore those facts, make it up as you go along and, when all else fails, LIE YOUR *** OFF. It won't change the FACT that you are spewing BS, but it might eventually discourage those who have to wade through it on their way to the real science.
Grumpy
The whistling sound you hear is the wind blowing through your perfectly empty head
QUOTE (Agent_X+Apr 18 2007, 05:33 PM)
It was not my intention to start an OT sub thread, but I couldn't let Arthur's comment pass.
So one more thing:
The Israelis have been employing terrorism against the British, the Americans and even Jews for decades. To dismiss that they could not have been involved whilst claiming anti-semitism is absurd.
BTW, the term "terrorist" came into modern usage in the 1940s after it was popularized in the British press in response to Jewish activities against the British in Palestine.
(and just a correction Fonzie, that was the King David Hotel)
and to correct you... "Terrorist" was a new found (old) descriptor that Bush has since ingrained in every American's head since his decision to go to war with Iraq.
Since that was made, EVERYONE is a terrorist... (and that may include you or I) depending on who you upset in the government.... No need to be selective, just bad mouth Bushie Boy and see what happens...
MM
So one more thing:
The Israelis have been employing terrorism against the British, the Americans and even Jews for decades. To dismiss that they could not have been involved whilst claiming anti-semitism is absurd.
BTW, the term "terrorist" came into modern usage in the 1940s after it was popularized in the British press in response to Jewish activities against the British in Palestine.
(and just a correction Fonzie, that was the King David Hotel)
and to correct you... "Terrorist" was a new found (old) descriptor that Bush has since ingrained in every American's head since his decision to go to war with Iraq.
Since that was made, EVERYONE is a terrorist... (and that may include you or I) depending on who you upset in the government.... No need to be selective, just bad mouth Bushie Boy and see what happens...
MM
In defense of NIST's building fire analysis, they have been doing just that since 1923. So I rather suspect that they know what they are about, although the comments about not taking into account possible aging effects are well taken, as are comments about chemical reactions they did not consider.
Nonetheless, the worst-case fire scenarios produce enough damage in the core to significantly weaken the structure.
===========
Sounds, low and rumbling, heard just before observable collapse are, IMO, floor collapses and possibly partial core collapses. For which tower were these sounds heard?
Nonetheless, the worst-case fire scenarios produce enough damage in the core to significantly weaken the structure.
===========
Sounds, low and rumbling, heard just before observable collapse are, IMO, floor collapses and possibly partial core collapses. For which tower were these sounds heard?
QUOTE
the towers were blown. it's been proven over and over.
simple denial does not change it.
Which is why poor Dr. Frank Greening (NEU-FONZE) did as best as he could for as long as he could...but NOW even he is fleeing from the words in his own "intelligent thermite creation" article SINCE THE "15 micron diameter iron spheres" have the "chain of custody" preserved AND ARE indicative of "commercially-prepared thermate".
People who seized the evidence and then destroyed it still could not avoid implicating themselves for murder
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
the towers were blown. it's been proven over and over. simple denial does not change it. |
Which is why poor Dr. Frank Greening (NEU-FONZE) did as best as he could for as long as he could...but NOW even he is fleeing from the words in his own "intelligent thermite creation" article SINCE THE "15 micron diameter iron spheres" have the "chain of custody" preserved AND ARE indicative of "commercially-prepared thermate".
People who seized the evidence and then destroyed it still could not avoid implicating themselves for murder
they did fall too fast.
..and again, that is why poor Dr. Greening flees from Gordon Ross's critique of his work... using Greening's own figures, factors, and assumptions AND EXTENDING Greening's timeline...
...shows that 17.5 seconds would have been the theoretical minimum "collapse time"
QUOTE
everybody who was there heard the explosions.
William Rodriguez...explosions first from below... heard the plane crash later up above
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
everybody who was there heard the explosions. |
William Rodriguez...explosions first from below... heard the plane crash later up above
sound analysis is science, not desperation.
..as is "seismic analysis"...the murderers COULD NOT help but bust themselves even though they seized and destroyed all that evidence
QUOTE
willful ignorance is not science, but is desperation. you OCTs have given up
Dr Frank Greening has given up... in spite of what he maintained to Chainsaw... Notice how he won't associate himself with Chainsaw's, MaskedMarauder's, Arthur's, Grumpy's conduct/explanations
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
willful ignorance is not science, but is desperation. you OCTs have given up |
Dr Frank Greening has given up... in spite of what he maintained to Chainsaw... Notice how he won't associate himself with Chainsaw's, MaskedMarauder's, Arthur's, Grumpy's conduct/explanations
dr. greening is the only OCT who realises you blind bats need a new mousetrap.
..and look at the humiliation he was subjected to in the process of having to run away from the words in his own published works...
... as well as agonizingly look at the conduct of those who would shill for the murders of his fellow britons(Arthur, Grumpy, Chainsaw, MaskedMarauder,etc)
QUOTE
it won't be good enough.
Indeed it won't...it'll ONLY GET WORSE... see how Jehovah God himself made the building at 19 Rector St. Building disappear in Part III of this 7:56 video...the last 2 minutes 30 seconds deal with....
...an angry Jehovah making a buiding disappear on 9/11 as a warning to Grumpy and Arthur to quit BSing.
Arthur and Grumpy are not listening and will not be able to BS St. Peter into letting them pass thorugh the Pearly Gates on Judgement Day.
I have NO OPINION on Parts I & II of the video...but Part III is just "incompetence"
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8442
How fast did the upper block have to be traveling before significant amounts of concrete were comminuted?
If about 8--9 m/s then in WTC 1 there were 2 stories worth of crushed materials below the top block to assist with the comminution, after falling for about 1.3 seconds...
If about 8--9 m/s then in WTC 1 there were 2 stories worth of crushed materials below the top block to assist with the comminution, after falling for about 1.3 seconds...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 18 2007, 11:29 PM)
How fast did the upper block have to be traveling before significant amounts of concrete were comminuted?
If about 8--9 m/s then in WTC 1 there were 2 stories worth of crushed materials below the top block to assist with the comminution, after falling for about 1.3 seconds...
David B Benson,
Hyperlink the readership to where Dr. Frank Greening has responded to Gordon Ross's critique of Greening's work
If about 8--9 m/s then in WTC 1 there were 2 stories worth of crushed materials below the top block to assist with the comminution, after falling for about 1.3 seconds...
David B Benson,
Hyperlink the readership to where Dr. Frank Greening has responded to Gordon Ross's critique of Greening's work
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 18 2007, 01:48 PM)
Your repetition of an UNSUPPORTED hypothesis is duly noted.
Your lack of common sense might be be lessened by a study of the Intermediate Value Theorem of calculus.
You do know what calculus is, don't you?
Yeah, it was "pointed out" by CT believers, but then like you, they also point out that the dust was a pyroclastic flow, that beam weapons vaporized steel and that there may have been suitcase nukes in the basement.
There appears to be NO EXOTIC MEANS of destruction of the towers that DOESN'T agree with some faction of the CT'er crowd.
Red herring 5 course meal, anybody? Red herring appetizer, red herring soup, red herring salad, red herring main course, and last, but not least, red herring ice cream.
Adoucette's Restarante de Irrationalite is monotonous, but the quality sure is consistent!
Red herring 5 course meal, anybody? Red herring appetizer, red herring soup, red herring salad, red herring main course, and last, but not least, red herring ice cream.
Adoucette's Restarante de Irrationalite is monotonous, but the quality sure is consistent!
You guys are just WAY SHORT ON ANY PROOF of any kind, nor does any of your suggested ALTERNATIVE means of destroying the towers match with the VISUAL EVIDENCE of the SLOW BOWING in of the perimeter columns.
Arthur
YAWN
Your thoughtless repetition of the OCT "no evidence" talking point, and so soon after I posted links with Jones' talks on his latest analysis of hard evidence from the collapses, shows that the facts are of no interest to you. Only your propaganda matters to you.
So, what else is new?
Go ahead Craig, tell us how the FAA estimated the impact time of AA Flight 11, and why it's relevant. I hope it doesn't involve the ability to see reflections in car windows.
Sure, Capracus...
...after much "reflection"...
The FAA issued an approximate time of 8:46:40 because this was the time of the last primary radar return. It is "approximate" due to the sweep of the radar antennae, which means it could have been up to six seconds after 8:46:40, but it could not have been before 8:46:40 because that was the time of the return.
Notice that both FactCheck and Arthur did not answer this question, and the answer is so simple.
There is no counter to the accuracy of the radar data. All the radar tracks for all the flights were synchronized to the 84th RADES radar track, which was synched to UTC. It had the complete radar data (from beginning to end) for all four flights.
http://www.911myths.com/Recorded_Radar_Dat...ur_aircraft.pdf
8:46:40 is when AA Flt 11 crashed, and NIST accepted the revised LDEO seismic time of 8:46:29 (plus or minus 1 second, which brought them to their published 8:46:30 time).
FACT: Both times are real and accurate.
So, what was the 8:46:40 time? Answer: The plane crash.
What was the 8:46:30 time? Answer: Explosions in the WTC1 sub-basements that many witnesses experienced.
Don't argue with me -- argue with the facts and the witnesses.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2006...longAndRoss.pdf
And yes, 9/11 WAS an inside job.
AND HE HIMSELF BORE OUR SINS IN HIS BODY ON THE CROSS
THAT WE MIGHT DIE TO SIN AND LIVE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS
FOR BY HIS WOUNDS YOU WERE HEALED
NOPE
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Section E3 and Section 3.6 in the same report.
NIST CLEARLY STATES THAT their times are DERIVED FROM THE FOUR LIVE BROADCASTS, not the LDEO times.
The time of the FIRST impact is derived from videos that extend between the first and second impact, like the Havel video, thus establishing a UNAMBIGUOUS time for that impact as well, 8:46:30 +/- 1.
Arthur
Your lack of common sense might be be lessened by a study of the Intermediate Value Theorem of calculus.
You do know what calculus is, don't you?
QUOTE
Yeah, it was "pointed out" by CT believers, but then like you, they also point out that the dust was a pyroclastic flow, that beam weapons vaporized steel and that there may have been suitcase nukes in the basement.
There appears to be NO EXOTIC MEANS of destruction of the towers that DOESN'T agree with some faction of the CT'er crowd.
Red herring 5 course meal, anybody? Red herring appetizer, red herring soup, red herring salad, red herring main course, and last, but not least, red herring ice cream.
Adoucette's Restarante de Irrationalite is monotonous, but the quality sure is consistent!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Yeah, it was "pointed out" by CT believers, but then like you, they also point out that the dust was a pyroclastic flow, that beam weapons vaporized steel and that there may have been suitcase nukes in the basement. There appears to be NO EXOTIC MEANS of destruction of the towers that DOESN'T agree with some faction of the CT'er crowd. |
Red herring 5 course meal, anybody? Red herring appetizer, red herring soup, red herring salad, red herring main course, and last, but not least, red herring ice cream.
Adoucette's Restarante de Irrationalite is monotonous, but the quality sure is consistent!
You guys are just WAY SHORT ON ANY PROOF of any kind, nor does any of your suggested ALTERNATIVE means of destroying the towers match with the VISUAL EVIDENCE of the SLOW BOWING in of the perimeter columns.
Arthur
YAWN
Your thoughtless repetition of the OCT "no evidence" talking point, and so soon after I posted links with Jones' talks on his latest analysis of hard evidence from the collapses, shows that the facts are of no interest to you. Only your propaganda matters to you.
So, what else is new?
Kahlmyishmael:
THE MOVING FINGER WRITES; AND HAVING WRIT
MOVES ON: NOR ALL THY PIETY NOR WIT
SHALL LURE ME, (yes me KI), BACK TO CANCEL HALF A LINE....
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam.
THE MOVING FINGER WRITES; AND HAVING WRIT
MOVES ON: NOR ALL THY PIETY NOR WIT
SHALL LURE ME, (yes me KI), BACK TO CANCEL HALF A LINE....
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam.
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 19 2007, 01:50 AM)
Red herring 5 course meal, anybody? Red herring appetizer, red herring soup, red herring salad, red herring main course, and last, but not least, red herring ice cream.
Adoucette's Restarante de Irrationalite is monotonous, but the quality sure is consistent!
Adoucette's Restarante de Irrationalite is monotonous, but the quality sure is consistent!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 19 2007, 01:50 AM)
Kahlmyishmael:
THE MOVING FINGER WRITES; AND HAVING WRIT
MOVES ON: NOR ALL THY PIETY NOR WIT
SHALL LURE ME, (yes me KI), BACK TO CANCEL HALF A LINE....
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam.
I wonder if Kahlmyishmael: is referring to 15 micron spears, Like the spears coming out of my skin from the last experiments, the hot reaction of zinc Chloride, and aluminum.
Wish I could figure out the drying rate on the gypsum Chrystal's that directly effects the amount of hydrogen retained in the gypsum. That is the most dangerous aspect never knowing the strength of the reactions. It is governed by moisture in the air, and by temperature which is constantly variable.
This is fun Kahlmyishmael: you might want to try the experiments yourself before you open your mouth, doing rather than ranting I told you the spheres were not such a mystery.
The problem is doing these highly energetic experiments with unpredictables, and not getting myself killed.
THE MOVING FINGER WRITES; AND HAVING WRIT
MOVES ON: NOR ALL THY PIETY NOR WIT
SHALL LURE ME, (yes me KI), BACK TO CANCEL HALF A LINE....
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam.
I wonder if Kahlmyishmael: is referring to 15 micron spears, Like the spears coming out of my skin from the last experiments, the hot reaction of zinc Chloride, and aluminum.
Wish I could figure out the drying rate on the gypsum Chrystal's that directly effects the amount of hydrogen retained in the gypsum. That is the most dangerous aspect never knowing the strength of the reactions. It is governed by moisture in the air, and by temperature which is constantly variable.
This is fun Kahlmyishmael: you might want to try the experiments yourself before you open your mouth, doing rather than ranting I told you the spheres were not such a mystery.
The problem is doing these highly energetic experiments with unpredictables, and not getting myself killed.
PS. sure wish some one had told me about zinc chloride reactions with aluminum, if I had known I would not have tried to collect the particles in aluminum pie pans. cheap inexpensive and potentially explosive when dealing with hot Iron-oxide and zinc chloride.
Here is a fairly good article regarding the new guidelines for progressive collapse avoidance and determining the DCRs. Note particularly how the dynamic behavior is simplified in the DCR determination by doubling the load.
Dynamic DCRs
Dynamic DCRs
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 19 2007, 08:19 PM)
Here is a fairly good article regarding the new guidelines for progressive collapse avoidance and determining the DCRs. Note particularly how the dynamic behavior is simplified in the DCR determination by doubling the load.
Dynamic DCRs
And that is just for handling the dynamic forces generated by instantaneously removing a support column. That is FAR LESS than would be generated by the impact of the top part of the tower falling though at least one story (more like three) and hitting the bottom section.
Arthur
Dynamic DCRs
And that is just for handling the dynamic forces generated by instantaneously removing a support column. That is FAR LESS than would be generated by the impact of the top part of the tower falling though at least one story (more like three) and hitting the bottom section.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 20 2007, 01:32 AM)
And that is just for handling the dynamic forces generated by instantaneously removing a support column. That is FAR LESS than would be generated by the impact of the top part of the tower falling though at least one story (more like three) and hitting the bottom section.
Yes. But ignoring that for the moment, and just considering the onset of collapse in WTC 1, the article implies I should double my estimate of the average DCR for core columns from about 2 to about 4. So there is no possibility of the surviving core columns doing anything but buckling followed quickly by connection failure...
Yes. But ignoring that for the moment, and just considering the onset of collapse in WTC 1, the article implies I should double my estimate of the average DCR for core columns from about 2 to about 4. So there is no possibility of the surviving core columns doing anything but buckling followed quickly by connection failure...
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 18 2007, 04:02 PM)
What's even MORE PERVERSE is that after the "fast as free fall" failed, they have tried DESPERATELY to come up with reasons to support their original FALSELY ARRIVED AT CONCLUSION.
Witness BS posts about reflections of Firetrucks in BMW windows and Sound Analysis from Hoboken as examples of DESPERATION.
Arthur
This is called "Leave no kook behind". Say thermite did it then what happens to the mini-nukers? Leave no kook behind is all inclusive.
Witness BS posts about reflections of Firetrucks in BMW windows and Sound Analysis from Hoboken as examples of DESPERATION.
Arthur
This is called "Leave no kook behind". Say thermite did it then what happens to the mini-nukers? Leave no kook behind is all inclusive.
QUOTE
(FactCheck,Apr 19 2007, 07:46 PM)
Excuse me, who's desperate?
I've got a question you can't / won't answer.
WHAT DID THE FAA BASE ITS FINAL IMPACT TIME OF 8:46:40 ON?
{Hint: The answer is a fact that shreds your position to pieces.}
C'mon, doc, let's have a little "Common Sense" -- now don't you guys kook-out on me.
EVERY MAN'S WAY IS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES
BUT THE LORD WEIGHS THE HEARTS
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (FactCheck,Apr 19 2007, 07:46 PM) (adoucette @ Apr 18 2007, 04:02 PM) What's even MORE PERVERSE is that after the "fast as free fall" failed, they have tried DESPERATELY to come up with reasons to support their original FALSELY ARRIVED AT CONCLUSION. Witness BS posts about reflections of Firetrucks in BMW windows and Sound Analysis from Hoboken as examples of DESPERATION. Arthur This is called "Leave no kook behind". Say thermite did it then what happens to the mini-nukers? Leave no kook behind is all inclusive. |
Excuse me, who's desperate?
I've got a question you can't / won't answer.
WHAT DID THE FAA BASE ITS FINAL IMPACT TIME OF 8:46:40 ON?
{Hint: The answer is a fact that shreds your position to pieces.}
C'mon, doc, let's have a little "Common Sense" -- now don't you guys kook-out on me.
EVERY MAN'S WAY IS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES
BUT THE LORD WEIGHS THE HEARTS
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 20 2007, 05:54 AM)
Excuse me, who's desperate?
I've got a question you can't / won't answer.
WHAT DID THE FAA BASE ITS FINAL IMPACT TIME OF 8:46:40 ON?
{Hint: The answer is a fact that shreds your position to pieces.}
I've got a question you can't / won't answer.
WHAT DID THE FAA BASE ITS FINAL IMPACT TIME OF 8:46:40 ON?
{Hint: The answer is a fact that shreds your position to pieces.}
Go ahead Craig, tell us how the FAA estimated the impact time of AA Flight 11, and why it's relevant. I hope it doesn't involve the ability to see reflections in car windows.
Capracus
Reflection, yes. Window,...er yes too.
In WW2 a radar fooling technique used strips of aluminum foil(called "window") to give multiple returns, thus disguising the real position of the aircraft.
After the impacts on 9/11 there was a huge fireball containing(you guessed it) strips of aluminum which continued to give a return on radar for many seconds after the aircraft no longer existed. Craig and Ross wrote a paper stating the last return was of the aircraft itself and claimed an explosion prior to the impact.
Of course, the Kaval video, having both impacts on a continuous stretch of tape, debunks their whole hypothesis, leading Furlong to have an emotional meltdown where he claimed to see a firetruck(or something) in the reflection off the BMW in front of the truck Havel was in(which turned out to be nothing more than the third brakelight for that particular model(as shown by adoucette). Then Furlong proceeded to "go crazy"(though he really didn't have that far to go, by that time).
Craig
Give it up, your paper has been totally falsified, the last reflection of the radar is simply the fireball and debris, not the aircraft. Therefore there was no explosion prior to impact. And the reputation of both you and Ross is garbage because of it.
Go back to your 911 research forum, you'll find many there who will accept your words on faith, now that they have been shown not to contain anything of scientific merit.
Grumpy
Reflection, yes. Window,...er yes too.
In WW2 a radar fooling technique used strips of aluminum foil(called "window") to give multiple returns, thus disguising the real position of the aircraft.
After the impacts on 9/11 there was a huge fireball containing(you guessed it) strips of aluminum which continued to give a return on radar for many seconds after the aircraft no longer existed. Craig and Ross wrote a paper stating the last return was of the aircraft itself and claimed an explosion prior to the impact.
Of course, the Kaval video, having both impacts on a continuous stretch of tape, debunks their whole hypothesis, leading Furlong to have an emotional meltdown where he claimed to see a firetruck(or something) in the reflection off the BMW in front of the truck Havel was in(which turned out to be nothing more than the third brakelight for that particular model(as shown by adoucette). Then Furlong proceeded to "go crazy"(though he really didn't have that far to go, by that time).
Craig
Give it up, your paper has been totally falsified, the last reflection of the radar is simply the fireball and debris, not the aircraft. Therefore there was no explosion prior to impact. And the reputation of both you and Ross is garbage because of it.
Go back to your 911 research forum, you'll find many there who will accept your words on faith, now that they have been shown not to contain anything of scientific merit.
Grumpy
how could they get an accurate radar return with the clutter from the city anyway? Wouldn't the aluminum skin of the tower reflect radar as well?
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 20 2007, 05:54 AM)
This is called "Leave no kook behind". Say thermite did it then what happens to the mini-nukers? Leave no kook behind is all inclusive.[/QUOTE]
Excuse me, who's desperate?
I've got a question you can't / won't answer.
WHAT DID THE FAA BASE ITS FINAL IMPACT TIME OF 8:46:40 ON?
{Hint: The answer is a fact that shreds your position to pieces.}
C'mon, doc, let's have a little "Common Sense" -- now don't you guys kook-out on me.
EVERY MAN'S WAY IS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES
BUT THE LORD WEIGHS THE HEARTS
WHAT DID THE NIST BASE IT'S IMPACT TIME ON? I'll give you a hint, it's NOT radar which is unreliable as arthur has pointed out to you time and time again.
You just don't like the answers when people give them to you.
Excuse me, who's desperate?
I've got a question you can't / won't answer.
WHAT DID THE FAA BASE ITS FINAL IMPACT TIME OF 8:46:40 ON?
{Hint: The answer is a fact that shreds your position to pieces.}
C'mon, doc, let's have a little "Common Sense" -- now don't you guys kook-out on me.
EVERY MAN'S WAY IS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES
BUT THE LORD WEIGHS THE HEARTS
WHAT DID THE NIST BASE IT'S IMPACT TIME ON? I'll give you a hint, it's NOT radar which is unreliable as arthur has pointed out to you time and time again.
You just don't like the answers when people give them to you.
FactCheck --- I'll bite. How did NIST determine the impact time in question? 
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 20 2007, 04:18 PM)
FactCheck --- I'll bite. How did NIST determine the impact time in question?
You will find the process described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Section E-3
All times are REFERENCED to the time the NOSE of the plane hit WTC 2.
Because this was captured by FOUR LIVE video feeds they could peg that event to 9:02:59 with an accuracy of +/- 1 second.
Because they had other video, like the time stamped Havel video which had both impacts, they could then place the first impact at 9:46:30 +/-1 second.
Unlike all other methods, this led to UNAMBIGUOUS timings for both events.
They then sequenced all pictures/videos to these timelines and could place about half of their videos and stills on the timeline with an accuracy of 3 seconds or less.
Arthur
You will find the process described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Section E-3
All times are REFERENCED to the time the NOSE of the plane hit WTC 2.
Because this was captured by FOUR LIVE video feeds they could peg that event to 9:02:59 with an accuracy of +/- 1 second.
Because they had other video, like the time stamped Havel video which had both impacts, they could then place the first impact at 9:46:30 +/-1 second.
Unlike all other methods, this led to UNAMBIGUOUS timings for both events.
They then sequenced all pictures/videos to these timelines and could place about half of their videos and stills on the timeline with an accuracy of 3 seconds or less.
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 20 2007, 02:35 AM)
Capracus
Reflection, yes. Window,...er yes too.
In WW2 a radar fooling technique used strips of aluminum foil(called "window") to give multiple returns, thus disguising the real position of the aircraft.
After the impacts on 9/11 there was a huge fireball containing(you guessed it) strips of aluminum which continued to give a return on radar for many seconds after the aircraft no longer existed. Craig and Ross wrote a paper stating the last return was of the aircraft itself and claimed an explosion prior to the impact.
Of course, the Kaval video, having both impacts on a continuous stretch of tape, debunks their whole hypothesis, leading Furlong to have an emotional meltdown where he claimed to see a firetruck(or something) in the reflection off the BMW in front of the truck Havel was in(which turned out to be nothing more than the third brakelight for that particular model(as shown by adoucette). Then Furlong proceeded to "go crazy"(though he really didn't have that far to go, by that time).
Craig
Give it up, your paper has been totally falsified, the last reflection of the radar is simply the fireball and debris, not the aircraft. Therefore there was no explosion prior to impact. And the reputation of both you and Ross is garbage because of it.
Go back to your 911 research forum, you'll find many there who will accept your words on faith, now that they have been shown not to contain anything of scientific merit.
Grumpy
At humor, you need a little work and practice, but don't give up. You do show promise.
FOR HE SAYS
AT THE ACCEPTABLE TIME I LISTENED TO YOU
AND ON THE DAY OF SALVATION I HELPED YOU
BEHOLD NOW IS THE ACCEPTABLE TIME
BEHOLD NOW IS THE DAY OF SALVATION
Reflection, yes. Window,...er yes too.
In WW2 a radar fooling technique used strips of aluminum foil(called "window") to give multiple returns, thus disguising the real position of the aircraft.
After the impacts on 9/11 there was a huge fireball containing(you guessed it) strips of aluminum which continued to give a return on radar for many seconds after the aircraft no longer existed. Craig and Ross wrote a paper stating the last return was of the aircraft itself and claimed an explosion prior to the impact.
Of course, the Kaval video, having both impacts on a continuous stretch of tape, debunks their whole hypothesis, leading Furlong to have an emotional meltdown where he claimed to see a firetruck(or something) in the reflection off the BMW in front of the truck Havel was in(which turned out to be nothing more than the third brakelight for that particular model(as shown by adoucette). Then Furlong proceeded to "go crazy"(though he really didn't have that far to go, by that time).
Craig
Give it up, your paper has been totally falsified, the last reflection of the radar is simply the fireball and debris, not the aircraft. Therefore there was no explosion prior to impact. And the reputation of both you and Ross is garbage because of it.
Go back to your 911 research forum, you'll find many there who will accept your words on faith, now that they have been shown not to contain anything of scientific merit.
Grumpy
At humor, you need a little work and practice, but don't give up. You do show promise.
FOR HE SAYS
AT THE ACCEPTABLE TIME I LISTENED TO YOU
AND ON THE DAY OF SALVATION I HELPED YOU
BEHOLD NOW IS THE ACCEPTABLE TIME
BEHOLD NOW IS THE DAY OF SALVATION
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 20 2007, 12:40 AM)
QUOTE
(quicknthedead @ Apr 20 2007, 05:54 AM)
Excuse me, who's desperate?
I've got a question you can't / won't answer.
WHAT DID THE FAA BASE ITS FINAL IMPACT TIME OF 8:46:40 ON?
{Hint: The answer is a fact that shreds your position to pieces.}
Excuse me, who's desperate?
I've got a question you can't / won't answer.
WHAT DID THE FAA BASE ITS FINAL IMPACT TIME OF 8:46:40 ON?
{Hint: The answer is a fact that shreds your position to pieces.}
Go ahead Craig, tell us how the FAA estimated the impact time of AA Flight 11, and why it's relevant. I hope it doesn't involve the ability to see reflections in car windows.
Sure, Capracus...
...after much "reflection"...
The FAA issued an approximate time of 8:46:40 because this was the time of the last primary radar return. It is "approximate" due to the sweep of the radar antennae, which means it could have been up to six seconds after 8:46:40, but it could not have been before 8:46:40 because that was the time of the return.
Notice that both FactCheck and Arthur did not answer this question, and the answer is so simple.
There is no counter to the accuracy of the radar data. All the radar tracks for all the flights were synchronized to the 84th RADES radar track, which was synched to UTC. It had the complete radar data (from beginning to end) for all four flights.
http://www.911myths.com/Recorded_Radar_Dat...ur_aircraft.pdf
8:46:40 is when AA Flt 11 crashed, and NIST accepted the revised LDEO seismic time of 8:46:29 (plus or minus 1 second, which brought them to their published 8:46:30 time).
FACT: Both times are real and accurate.
So, what was the 8:46:40 time? Answer: The plane crash.
What was the 8:46:30 time? Answer: Explosions in the WTC1 sub-basements that many witnesses experienced.
Don't argue with me -- argue with the facts and the witnesses.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2006...longAndRoss.pdf
And yes, 9/11 WAS an inside job.
AND HE HIMSELF BORE OUR SINS IN HIS BODY ON THE CROSS
THAT WE MIGHT DIE TO SIN AND LIVE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS
FOR BY HIS WOUNDS YOU WERE HEALED
QUOTE
8:46:40 is when AA Flt 11 crashed, and NIST accepted the revised LDEO seismic time of 8:46:29 (plus or minus 1 second, which brought them to their published 8:46:30 time).
NOPE
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Section E3 and Section 3.6 in the same report.
NIST CLEARLY STATES THAT their times are DERIVED FROM THE FOUR LIVE BROADCASTS, not the LDEO times.
The time of the FIRST impact is derived from videos that extend between the first and second impact, like the Havel video, thus establishing a UNAMBIGUOUS time for that impact as well, 8:46:30 +/- 1.
Arthur
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 21 2007, 05:12 AM)
The FAA issued an approximate time of 8:46:40 because this was the time of the last primary radar return. It is "approximate" due to the sweep of the radar antennae, which means it could have been up to six seconds after 8:46:40, but it could not have been before 8:46:40 because that was the time of the return.
So then the FAA radar time of 9:03:11 for the impact of UA Flight 175 is also accurate.
From the 9/11 Commission Report:
130.“N90 [New York Terminal Radar Approach] controller stated ‘at approximately 9:00 a.m., I observed an unknown aircraft south of the Newark, New Jersey Airport, northeast bound and descending out of twelve thousand nine hundred feet in a rapid rate of descent, the radar target terminated at the World Trade Center.’” FAA report,“Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11, 2001,” Sept. 17, 2001. Former NORAD official Alan Scott testified that the time of impact of United 175 was 9:02. William Scott testimony, May 23, 2003. We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11 based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic.Craig, if the FAA radar impact time for Flight 175 is accurate, then why is it 12 seconds later than the undeniably accurate TV broadcast times of 9:02:59? What happened to your not before rule?
From the 9/11 Commission Report:
QUOTE
130.“N90 [New York Terminal Radar Approach] controller stated ‘at approximately 9:00 a.m., I observed an unknown aircraft south of the Newark, New Jersey Airport, northeast bound and descending out of twelve thousand nine hundred feet in a rapid rate of descent, the radar target terminated at the World Trade Center.’” FAA report,“Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11, 2001,” Sept. 17, 2001. Former NORAD official Alan Scott testified that the time of impact of United 175 was 9:02. William Scott testimony, May 23, 2003. We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11 based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
130.“N90 [New York Terminal Radar Approach] controller stated ‘at approximately 9:00 a.m., I observed an unknown aircraft south of the Newark, New Jersey Airport, northeast bound and descending out of twelve thousand nine hundred feet in a rapid rate of descent, the radar target terminated at the World Trade Center.’” FAA report,“Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11, 2001,” Sept. 17, 2001. Former NORAD official Alan Scott testified that the time of impact of United 175 was 9:02. William Scott testimony, May 23, 2003. We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11 based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic. |
Craig, if the FAA radar impact time for Flight 175 is accurate, then why is it 12 seconds later than the undeniably accurate TV broadcast times of 9:02:59? What happened to your not before rule?
There is no counter to the accuracy of the radar data. All the radar tracks for all the flights were synchronized to the 84th RADES radar track, which was synched to UTC. It had the complete radar data (from beginning to end) for all four flights.
There is no counter to the accuracy of the radar data. All the radar tracks for all the flights were synchronized to the 84th RADES radar track, which was synched to UTC. It had the complete radar data (from beginning to end) for all four flights.
I just gave you an example of a contradiction above. As for AA Flight 11, the Pavel Hlava video recorded both impacts with time stamps, and the time stamps are within a second of the times used by NIST. There are also two other videos of the impact of AA Flight 11, the Jules Naudet video and the Wolfgang Staehle video, both of which may also have time stamps.
After watching the Naudet video, it dawned on me that the sounds of the impact of Flight 11 may have been recorded in the communications of emergency personnel or in the audio tracks of security systems. How many people in the north tower reacted to the impact during recorded phone conversations? How many recorded communications were physically terminated by the impact? Did NIST use this information in their timing analysis?
In particular, there is zero dynamic effect ito load factor as a result of removing a column - even an adjacent one.
This should have said:
In particular, there is zero dynamic effect on a column ito load factor as a result of removing another column - even an adjacent one.
The FAA issued an approximate time of 8:46:40 because this was the time of the last primary radar return. It is "approximate" due to the sweep of the radar antennae, which means it could have been up to six seconds after 8:46:40, but it could not have been before 8:46:40 because that was the time of the return.
Notice that both FactCheck and Arthur did not answer this question, and the answer is so simple.
There is no counter to the accuracy of the radar data. All the radar tracks for all the flights were synchronized to the 84th RADES radar track, which was synched to UTC. It had the complete radar data (from beginning to end) for all four flights.
http://www.911myths.com/Recorded_Radar_Dat...ur_aircraft.pdf
8:46:40 is when AA Flt 11 crashed, and NIST accepted the revised LDEO seismic time of 8:46:29 (plus or minus 1 second, which brought them to their published 8:46:30 time).
FACT: Both times are real and accurate.
So, what was the 8:46:40 time? Answer: The plane crash.
What was the 8:46:30 time? Answer: Explosions in the WTC1 sub-basements that many witnesses experienced.
Don't argue with me -- argue with the facts and the witnesses.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2006...longAndRoss.pdf
And yes, 9/11 WAS an inside job.
NOPE
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Section E3 and Section 3.6 in the same report.
NIST CLEARLY STATES THAT their times are DERIVED FROM THE FOUR LIVE BROADCASTS, not the LDEO times.
The time of the FIRST impact is derived from videos that extend between the first and second impact, like the Havel video, thus establishing a UNAMBIGUOUS time for that impact as well, 8:46:30 +/- 1.
Arthur
Yawn
THY WORD HAVE I HID IN MY HEART
THAT I MIGHT NOT SIN AGAINST THEE
You rely upon fraud. You need a moment of "reflection" to understand your error.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333
You rely upon fraud. You need a moment of "reflection" to understand your error.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333
8:46:40 is the time the FAA erroneously estimated for the impact of Flight 11, just as 9:03:11 is the time they erroneously estimated for the impact of Flight 175. Why are the FAA estimates off by around 10 seconds? Who knows. I thought Grump's explanation of the impact debris creating an extended return made some sense.
Your agreement with an absurd comment shows you lack an understanding of radar.
As far as the timing of WTC impacts are concerned, the FAA radar times have been shown to be irrelevant. As a matter of curiosity though, if you really want to clear up this personal dilemma of your's, then do what I have suggested in the past and go contact the FAA and get a valid explanation, but only if you think you can handle the truth.
The radar times are false, and the accounts of explosions in the basement are most likely the subjective interpretations of the plane impacts and the resultant effects on the buildings.
False. No one has shown the radar times are in error, and comparing them to NIST is false logic that does not prove this.
To quote adoucette, "Yawn."
BUT NOW ABIDE FAITH HOPE LOVE
THESE THREE
BUT THE GREATER OF THESE IS LOVE
After watching the Naudet video, it dawned on me that the sounds of the impact of Flight 11 may have been recorded in the communications of emergency personnel or in the audio tracks of security systems. How many people in the north tower reacted to the impact during recorded phone conversations? How many recorded communications were physically terminated by the impact? Did NIST use this information in their timing analysis?
QUOTE
8:46:40 is when AA Flt 11 crashed, and NIST accepted the revised LDEO seismic time of 8:46:29 (plus or minus 1 second, which brought them to their published 8:46:30 time).
8:46:40 is the time the FAA erroneously estimated for the impact of Flight 11, just as 9:03:11 is the time they erroneously estimated for the impact of Flight 175. Why are the FAA estimates off by around 10 seconds? Who knows. I thought Grump's explanation of the impact debris creating an extended return made some sense. As far as the timing of WTC impacts are concerned, the FAA radar times have been shown to be irrelevant. As a matter of curiosity though, if you really want to clear up this personal dilemma of your's, then do what I have suggested in the past and go contact the FAA and get a valid explanation, but only if you think you can handle the truth. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 8:46:40 is when AA Flt 11 crashed, and NIST accepted the revised LDEO seismic time of 8:46:29 (plus or minus 1 second, which brought them to their published 8:46:30 time). |
8:46:40 is the time the FAA erroneously estimated for the impact of Flight 11, just as 9:03:11 is the time they erroneously estimated for the impact of Flight 175. Why are the FAA estimates off by around 10 seconds? Who knows. I thought Grump's explanation of the impact debris creating an extended return made some sense. As far as the timing of WTC impacts are concerned, the FAA radar times have been shown to be irrelevant. As a matter of curiosity though, if you really want to clear up this personal dilemma of your's, then do what I have suggested in the past and go contact the FAA and get a valid explanation, but only if you think you can handle the truth.
FACT: Both times are real and accurate.
So, what was the 8:46:40 time? Answer: The plane crash.
What was the 8:46:30 time? Answer: Explosions in the WTC1 sub-basements that many witnesses experienced.
FACT: Both times are real and accurate.
So, what was the 8:46:40 time? Answer: The plane crash.
What was the 8:46:30 time? Answer: Explosions in the WTC1 sub-basements that many witnesses experienced.
The radar times are false, and the accounts of explosions in the basement are most likely the subjective interpretations of the plane impacts and the resultant effects on the buildings.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 20 2007, 01:19 AM)
Here is a fairly good article regarding the new guidelines for progressive collapse avoidance and determining the DCRs. Note particularly how the dynamic behavior is simplified in the DCR determination by doubling the load.
Dynamic DCRs
But don't fail to note, particularly, that
In a linear or nonlinear static analysis, apply the following amplified factored load to those bays immediately adjacent to the removed element and at all floors above the removed element:
Load = 2[(0.9 or 1.2)D + (0.5L or 0.2S)] + 0.2W
where D = dead load, L = live load, S = snow load, and W = wind load.
For the rest of the structure, the following load is applied:
Load = (0.9 or 1.2)D + (0.5L or 0.2S) + 0.2W
In particular, there is zero dynamic effect ito load factor as a result of removing a column - even an adjacent one.
That a floor ("bay") segment that is attached at one end to a column which has been 'disappeared' might collapse is not surprising. What would be surprising is if such a bay collapse caused adjacent columns to collapse.
It would appear that the author does not believe that just saying "boo" will bring such an adjacent columnar collapse about, any more than I do.....
Dynamic DCRs
But don't fail to note, particularly, that
QUOTE
In a linear or nonlinear static analysis, apply the following amplified factored load to those bays immediately adjacent to the removed element and at all floors above the removed element:
Load = 2[(0.9 or 1.2)D + (0.5L or 0.2S)] + 0.2W
where D = dead load, L = live load, S = snow load, and W = wind load.
For the rest of the structure, the following load is applied:
Load = (0.9 or 1.2)D + (0.5L or 0.2S) + 0.2W
In particular, there is zero dynamic effect ito load factor as a result of removing a column - even an adjacent one.
That a floor ("bay") segment that is attached at one end to a column which has been 'disappeared' might collapse is not surprising. What would be surprising is if such a bay collapse caused adjacent columns to collapse.
It would appear that the author does not believe that just saying "boo" will bring such an adjacent columnar collapse about, any more than I do.....
notsoquick
For a religious nut who thinks scripture is relivant, you don't do so badly, yourself.
Once again adoucette has masterfully put paid to your paranoid delusions(he's getting pretty good at this). Your and Ross's paper has been shown to be a large steaming pile of CRAP once again. The third brake light you say morphed into a fire truck has morphed once more into a brake light, never to morph again. The seismic evidence lines up directly with the video evidence, there was no bomb going off before impact, the radar times are erronious(probably due to the tracking of aircraft debris and aluminum cladding on the building in the fireball). This is a classic example of how basing your conclusions on cherry-picked evidence will lead you to erronious conclusions. As an object lesson in how NOT to conduct science is it's only redeeming value. And such faulty, pseudoscientific "papers" are why neither you nor Gordon Ross have any scientific credibility left.
Grumpy
QUOTE
At humor, you need a little work and practice, but don't give up. You do show promise.
For a religious nut who thinks scripture is relivant, you don't do so badly, yourself.
Once again adoucette has masterfully put paid to your paranoid delusions(he's getting pretty good at this). Your and Ross's paper has been shown to be a large steaming pile of CRAP once again. The third brake light you say morphed into a fire truck has morphed once more into a brake light, never to morph again. The seismic evidence lines up directly with the video evidence, there was no bomb going off before impact, the radar times are erronious(probably due to the tracking of aircraft debris and aluminum cladding on the building in the fireball). This is a classic example of how basing your conclusions on cherry-picked evidence will lead you to erronious conclusions. As an object lesson in how NOT to conduct science is it's only redeeming value. And such faulty, pseudoscientific "papers" are why neither you nor Gordon Ross have any scientific credibility left.
Grumpy
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 21 2007, 01:07 PM)
In particular, there is zero dynamic effect ito load factor as a result of removing a column - even an adjacent one.
This should have said:
In particular, there is zero dynamic effect on a column ito load factor as a result of removing another column - even an adjacent one.
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 21 2007, 03:08 PM)
In particular, there is zero dynamic effect on a column ito[sic] load factor as a result of removing another column - even an adjacent one.
Nope. Adjacent bays in a steel-framed structure means all the beams connected to the missing element and all the columns supporting those.
But for my purposes regarding WTC 1 collapse initiation, what is missing is the continuity of the exterior walls on three sides. This increases the static load on the core to an average DCR of about 2. The point in using the offered analysis is to estimate the dynamic effect of a sudden load of infinite duration. Using this estimation method the average DCR on surviving core columns had a DCR of about 4.
Nope. Adjacent bays in a steel-framed structure means all the beams connected to the missing element and all the columns supporting those.
But for my purposes regarding WTC 1 collapse initiation, what is missing is the continuity of the exterior walls on three sides. This increases the static load on the core to an average DCR of about 2. The point in using the offered analysis is to estimate the dynamic effect of a sudden load of infinite duration. Using this estimation method the average DCR on surviving core columns had a DCR of about 4.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 21 2007, 06:53 PM)
Nope. Adjacent bays in a steel-framed structure means all the beams connected to the missing element and all the columns supporting those.
But for my purposes regarding WTC 1 collapse initiation, what is missing is the continuity of the exterior walls on three sides. This increases the static load on the core to an average DCR of about 2. The point in using the offered analysis is to estimate the dynamic effect of a sudden load of infinite duration. Using this estimation method the average DCR on surviving core columns had a DCR of about 4.
And from where did you get this definition?
But for my purposes regarding WTC 1 collapse initiation, what is missing is the continuity of the exterior walls on three sides. This increases the static load on the core to an average DCR of about 2. The point in using the offered analysis is to estimate the dynamic effect of a sudden load of infinite duration. Using this estimation method the average DCR on surviving core columns had a DCR of about 4.
And from where did you get this definition?
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 21 2007, 08:02 PM)
And from where did you get this definition?
I assume you mean adjacent bays. There are many easily found sites which attempt to explain the DoD and FEMA rules for the analysis of building designs which are intended to withstand progressive collapse. These are, in general, much more detailed than the short article that I linked yesterday.
Since all I wanted to bring out is the load doubling to account for the dynamic effects.
This is quite approximate, since the DCR computations apply to ordinary steel framed structures, not the design used in the towers...
I assume you mean adjacent bays. There are many easily found sites which attempt to explain the DoD and FEMA rules for the analysis of building designs which are intended to withstand progressive collapse. These are, in general, much more detailed than the short article that I linked yesterday.
Since all I wanted to bring out is the load doubling to account for the dynamic effects.
This is quite approximate, since the DCR computations apply to ordinary steel framed structures, not the design used in the towers...
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 20 2007, 10:12 PM)
The FAA issued an approximate time of 8:46:40 because this was the time of the last primary radar return. It is "approximate" due to the sweep of the radar antennae, which means it could have been up to six seconds after 8:46:40, but it could not have been before 8:46:40 because that was the time of the return.
Notice that both FactCheck and Arthur did not answer this question, and the answer is so simple.
There is no counter to the accuracy of the radar data. All the radar tracks for all the flights were synchronized to the 84th RADES radar track, which was synched to UTC. It had the complete radar data (from beginning to end) for all four flights.
http://www.911myths.com/Recorded_Radar_Dat...ur_aircraft.pdf
8:46:40 is when AA Flt 11 crashed, and NIST accepted the revised LDEO seismic time of 8:46:29 (plus or minus 1 second, which brought them to their published 8:46:30 time).
FACT: Both times are real and accurate.
So, what was the 8:46:40 time? Answer: The plane crash.
What was the 8:46:30 time? Answer: Explosions in the WTC1 sub-basements that many witnesses experienced.
Don't argue with me -- argue with the facts and the witnesses.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2006...longAndRoss.pdf
And yes, 9/11 WAS an inside job.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 20 2007, 10:31 PM)
NOPE
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Section E3 and Section 3.6 in the same report.
NIST CLEARLY STATES THAT their times are DERIVED FROM THE FOUR LIVE BROADCASTS, not the LDEO times.
The time of the FIRST impact is derived from videos that extend between the first and second impact, like the Havel video, thus establishing a UNAMBIGUOUS time for that impact as well, 8:46:30 +/- 1.
Arthur
Yawn
THY WORD HAVE I HID IN MY HEART
THAT I MIGHT NOT SIN AGAINST THEE
QUOTE
(Capracus,Apr 21 2007, 03:25 AM)
So then the FAA radar time of 9:03:11 for the impact of UA Flight 175 is also accurate.
From the 9/11 Commission Report:Craig, if the FAA radar impact time for Flight 175 is accurate, then why is it 12 seconds later than the undeniably accurate TV broadcast times of 9:02:59? What happened to your not before rule?
I just gave you an example of a contradiction above. As for AA Flight 11, the Pavel Hlava video recorded both impacts with time stamps, and the time stamps are within a second of the times used by NIST. There are also two other videos of the impact of AA Flight 11, the Jules Naudet video and the Wolfgang Staehle video, both of which may also have time stamps.
So then the FAA radar time of 9:03:11 for the impact of UA Flight 175 is also accurate.
From the 9/11 Commission Report:Craig, if the FAA radar impact time for Flight 175 is accurate, then why is it 12 seconds later than the undeniably accurate TV broadcast times of 9:02:59? What happened to your not before rule?
I just gave you an example of a contradiction above. As for AA Flight 11, the Pavel Hlava video recorded both impacts with time stamps, and the time stamps are within a second of the times used by NIST. There are also two other videos of the impact of AA Flight 11, the Jules Naudet video and the Wolfgang Staehle video, both of which may also have time stamps.
You rely upon fraud. You need a moment of "reflection" to understand your error.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Capracus,Apr 21 2007, 03:25 AM) So then the FAA radar time of 9:03:11 for the impact of UA Flight 175 is also accurate. From the 9/11 Commission Report:Craig, if the FAA radar impact time for Flight 175 is accurate, then why is it 12 seconds later than the undeniably accurate TV broadcast times of 9:02:59? What happened to your not before rule? I just gave you an example of a contradiction above. As for AA Flight 11, the Pavel Hlava video recorded both impacts with time stamps, and the time stamps are within a second of the times used by NIST. There are also two other videos of the impact of AA Flight 11, the Jules Naudet video and the Wolfgang Staehle video, both of which may also have time stamps. |
You rely upon fraud. You need a moment of "reflection" to understand your error.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333
8:46:40 is the time the FAA erroneously estimated for the impact of Flight 11, just as 9:03:11 is the time they erroneously estimated for the impact of Flight 175. Why are the FAA estimates off by around 10 seconds? Who knows. I thought Grump's explanation of the impact debris creating an extended return made some sense.
Your agreement with an absurd comment shows you lack an understanding of radar.
QUOTE
As far as the timing of WTC impacts are concerned, the FAA radar times have been shown to be irrelevant. As a matter of curiosity though, if you really want to clear up this personal dilemma of your's, then do what I have suggested in the past and go contact the FAA and get a valid explanation, but only if you think you can handle the truth.
The radar times are false, and the accounts of explosions in the basement are most likely the subjective interpretations of the plane impacts and the resultant effects on the buildings.
False. No one has shown the radar times are in error, and comparing them to NIST is false logic that does not prove this.
To quote adoucette, "Yawn."
BUT NOW ABIDE FAITH HOPE LOVE
THESE THREE
BUT THE GREATER OF THESE IS LOVE
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 21 2007, 08:16 PM)
I assume you mean adjacent bays. There are many easily found sites which attempt to explain the DoD and FEMA rules for the analysis of building designs which are intended to withstand progressive collapse. These are, in general, much more detailed than the short article that I linked yesterday.
Since all I wanted to bring out is the load doubling to account for the dynamic effects.
This is quite approximate, since the DCR computations apply to ordinary steel framed structures, not the design used in the towers...
You don't seem very definite that, if I were to search these other web sites, I would find it to be a common convention that a "bay" must mean adjacent columns, also.
Since the quote I gave implied that a DCR of about 2 means failure, disappearing one column when other columns on the floor already have a DCR of about 1 implies a chain reaction that will collapse all of the columns on that floor. (Since "dynamic effects" correspond to a factor of 2).
Don't you think that's a little hard to believe?
Since all I wanted to bring out is the load doubling to account for the dynamic effects.
This is quite approximate, since the DCR computations apply to ordinary steel framed structures, not the design used in the towers...
You don't seem very definite that, if I were to search these other web sites, I would find it to be a common convention that a "bay" must mean adjacent columns, also.
Since the quote I gave implied that a DCR of about 2 means failure, disappearing one column when other columns on the floor already have a DCR of about 1 implies a chain reaction that will collapse all of the columns on that floor. (Since "dynamic effects" correspond to a factor of 2).
Don't you think that's a little hard to believe?
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 21 2007, 03:54 PM)
You rely upon fraud.
NOPE,
But you RELY on the Hlava video being a FRAUD.
NOPE,
But you RELY on the Hlava video being a FRAUD.
QUOTE (Not too Quick+)
To repeat, this video is based in fraud, and the only question is how deep does this fraud go. Among other things, tampering of the video’s timestamping is a very real possibility,
Which is why you tried to claim the third brake light was the reflection of a light bar in that BMW's raked rear window.
But CLEARLY it was not.
Which is why no one pays any attention to your BOGUS claims but other really sad "troofers".
Arthur
Which is why you tried to claim the third brake light was the reflection of a light bar in that BMW's raked rear window.
But CLEARLY it was not.
Which is why no one pays any attention to your BOGUS claims but other really sad "troofers".
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 21 2007, 09:13 PM)
Since the quote I gave implied that a DCR of about 2 means failure, disappearing one column when other columns on the floor already have a DCR of about 1 implies a chain reaction that will collapse all of the columns on that floor. (Since "dynamic effects" correspond to a factor of 2).
That's not how the method(s) work. The engineer is to do one thing for DCR < 1, another for DCRs between 1 and 2 and still another for DCRs between 2 and 3.
But, in particular, progressive collapse is assumed to occur if the computed DCRs in adjacent columns are sufficiently high. That's what progressive collapse means, after all.
I recommend that, if you are interested in this matter, you go back to the link I provided to find the identifying names and numbers of the relevant documents. Use those to do some web trawling. You'll find plenty of sites which describe the design method, including DCRs, in great detail.
The reason is that this technique is rather new for the (highly conservative) structural engineering community, so considerable guidance has had to be provided.
=====================
Also, given the loads used in the linked article, the engineer had better find the unaugmented DCRs are considerably less than one, being only D + 0.25L.
That's not how the method(s) work. The engineer is to do one thing for DCR < 1, another for DCRs between 1 and 2 and still another for DCRs between 2 and 3.
But, in particular, progressive collapse is assumed to occur if the computed DCRs in adjacent columns are sufficiently high. That's what progressive collapse means, after all.
I recommend that, if you are interested in this matter, you go back to the link I provided to find the identifying names and numbers of the relevant documents. Use those to do some web trawling. You'll find plenty of sites which describe the design method, including DCRs, in great detail.
The reason is that this technique is rather new for the (highly conservative) structural engineering community, so considerable guidance has had to be provided.
=====================
Also, given the loads used in the linked article, the engineer had better find the unaugmented DCRs are considerably less than one, being only D + 0.25L.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 21 2007, 02:23 PM)
NOPE,
But you RELY on the Hlava video being a FRAUD.
But you RELY on the Hlava video being a FRAUD.
QUOTE (Not too Quick+)
To repeat, this video is based in fraud, and the only question is how deep does this fraud go. Among other things, tampering of the video’s timestamping is a very real possibility,
Which is why you tried to claim the third brake light was the reflection of a light bar in that BMW's raked rear window.
But CLEARLY it was not.
Which is why no one pays any attention to your BOGUS claims but other really sad "troofers".
Arthur
Clearly you are not only blind (in so many ways), but you are the one who is wrong.
Open your eyes.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333
BUT MANY WHO ARE FIRST WILL BE LAST
AND THE LAST FIRST
You rely upon fraud. You need a moment of "reflection" to understand your error.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333
Your agreement with an absurd comment shows you lack an understanding of radar.
False. No one has shown the radar times are in error, and comparing them to NIST is false logic that does not prove this.
To quote adoucette, "Yawn."
BUT NOW ABIDE FAITH HOPE LOVE
THESE THREE
BUT THE GREATER OF THESE IS LOVE
Craig, I noticed that you conveniently skated around my examples of Flight 175 and the Pavel Hlava video that essentially make your radar claims irrelevant.
It appears that you are psychologically incapable of facing the facts of this situation, no matter what evidence is presented to you. It would be like some archaeologist finally finding the bones of Jesus Christ and shattering your delusional belief in the resurrection.
Which is why you tried to claim the third brake light was the reflection of a light bar in that BMW's raked rear window.
But CLEARLY it was not.
Which is why no one pays any attention to your BOGUS claims but other really sad "troofers".
Arthur
Clearly you are not only blind (in so many ways), but you are the one who is wrong.
Open your eyes.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333
BUT MANY WHO ARE FIRST WILL BE LAST
AND THE LAST FIRST
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 21 2007, 08:54 PM)
You rely upon fraud. You need a moment of "reflection" to understand your error.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333
Your agreement with an absurd comment shows you lack an understanding of radar.
False. No one has shown the radar times are in error, and comparing them to NIST is false logic that does not prove this.
To quote adoucette, "Yawn."
BUT NOW ABIDE FAITH HOPE LOVE
THESE THREE
BUT THE GREATER OF THESE IS LOVE
Craig, I noticed that you conveniently skated around my examples of Flight 175 and the Pavel Hlava video that essentially make your radar claims irrelevant.
It appears that you are psychologically incapable of facing the facts of this situation, no matter what evidence is presented to you. It would be like some archaeologist finally finding the bones of Jesus Christ and shattering your delusional belief in the resurrection.
Well Craig, PLEASE continue to claim that the video is faked, it just shows what LIARS Troofers really are, which does MORE HARM to your group than I ever could.
Arthur
Arthur
Clamped Portal Frame --- This is a single 'bay' with fixed supports for the two columns (clamped) and rigid connections between the tops of the columns and the single beam between them. Assuming a square profile, that is, the beam is as long ( as the columns are high (L), and assuming the same dimensions and materials for all three members (EI), the equation for the critical load (where sway buckling begins under quasi-static loading) is
P/2 = 7.379EI/L^2 with load P/2 applied at the top of each column.
This differs from Euler buckling only in having a smaller constant.
From pages 123--4, Fundamentals of Structural Stability (Smiitses & Hodges).
We can simplify the core of WTC 1 into a clamped portal frame by having only a north and a south super-column, which we take to be about 11 m apart so that L is the length of the core column pieces. Not knowing what to use for I, we can at least compare it to the corresponding Euler buckling problem via the known safety factor against Euler buckling of 1.67: For Euler buckling we have
P = 19.719EI/L^2
and under the dubious assumption of using the same I, we see a reduced critical load by a factor of 0.75 for the clamped portal frame. So this would reduce the actual safety factor to about (3/4)(5/3) = 1.25. This does not look healthy...
as the columns are high (L), and assuming the same dimensions and materials for all three members (EI), the equation for the critical load (where sway buckling begins under quasi-static loading) isP/2 = 7.379EI/L^2 with load P/2 applied at the top of each column.
This differs from Euler buckling only in having a smaller constant.
From pages 123--4, Fundamentals of Structural Stability (Smiitses & Hodges).
We can simplify the core of WTC 1 into a clamped portal frame by having only a north and a south super-column, which we take to be about 11 m apart so that L is the length of the core column pieces. Not knowing what to use for I, we can at least compare it to the corresponding Euler buckling problem via the known safety factor against Euler buckling of 1.67: For Euler buckling we have
P = 19.719EI/L^2
and under the dubious assumption of using the same I, we see a reduced critical load by a factor of 0.75 for the clamped portal frame. So this would reduce the actual safety factor to about (3/4)(5/3) = 1.25. This does not look healthy...
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 21 2007, 03:52 PM)
Well Craig, PLEASE continue to claim that the video is faked, it just shows what LIARS Troofers really are, which does MORE HARM to your group than I ever could.
Arthur
It has fraud written all over it.
IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
Arthur
It has fraud written all over it.
IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
Toofer --- slang for "two four", a 24 pack of beer. Canadian in origin.
"How much beer are you going to buy?"
"A toofer"
Source: Urban dictionary.
"How much beer are you going to buy?"
"A toofer"
Source: Urban dictionary.
notsoquick
?????
What's your point, there are no reflections in the back window of that BMW(except for the third brake light) no matter how far they are blown up, nor how fuzzy they get and no matter how hard you squint your eyes trying to find any such reflection. Therefor the Havel video is NOT a fraud, YOU ARE. And that video is one of the nails in the coffin for that piece o' crap "paper" you and Ross cooked up with cherry picked data.
?????
What's your point, there are no reflections in the back window of that BMW(except for the third brake light) no matter how far they are blown up, nor how fuzzy they get and no matter how hard you squint your eyes trying to find any such reflection. Therefor the Havel video is NOT a fraud, YOU ARE. And that video is one of the nails in the coffin for that piece o' crap "paper" you and Ross cooked up with cherry picked data.
Your agreement with an absurd comment shows you lack an understanding of radar.
So all those bombers who dropped window over Germany were wasting their time??? Why were radars able to follow the debris of the Space Shuttle Columbia all the way to the ground when it ceased to be the SS somewhere over Texas??? When a plane is hit by an air to air missile does it disappear from the radar screen at that exact moment, or does the radar track the wreckage to the ground??? What is it following if the plane has blown to pieces???
Your lies have been exposed, you are just mentally incapable of accepting the humiliation for being so wrong for so long and having that fact thrown in your face every time you bring it up. Were I so thouroughly punked as you have been I would be too embarrassed to show my face again, so I can understand how you must feel. But the facts are out, you no longer have any excuse for not knowing those facts and we know that lying for Christ is not a Christian value. So here is my first(and probably last) quoting of scripture in this thread, but I thought it particularly appropriate, given your behavior.
1 John 2,4
Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
Grumpy
Not to long to find one of SEVERAL MAJOR OOPS in this farce of a paper.
Which hits its high note here:
Not to long to find one of SEVERAL MAJOR OOPS in this farce of a paper.
Which hits its high note here:
Moreover, even neglecting the different strengths of steel at different temperatures, it is astronomically improbable that approximately 250 steel columns would fail due to “natural causes” within the same very short time interval. In more popular language, this hidden assumption underlying Dr. Garcia's calculation is "statistically impossible."
But there IS one way that all 250 some columns could have lost all strength simultaneously. It's called CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True”:
ROTFLMAO
Arthur
Not to long to find one of SEVERAL MAJOR OOPS in this farce of a paper.
Which hits its high note here:
ROTFLMAO
Arthur
whatever, buddy. nice hand waving and proof by intimidation, arthurs.
the 2000% figure is from the "engineering news record". i do not find that figure outrageous, at all.
whatever, buddy. nice hand waving and proof by intimidation, arthurs.
the 2000% figure is from the "engineering news record". i do not find that figure outrageous, at all.
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS
For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.
the whole engineering news record article
The largest contract for fabrication of structural steel is held by Pacific Car and Foundry Co., of Seattle. It is $21.79 million for 55,000 tons of steel for the towers' bearing wall panels from the ninth floor up.
In all there are 5,828 of these panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons.
55, 000 tons of the total weight of one tower is in the wall panels from the ninth floor up. that's a big moment.
55, 000 tons of the total weight of one tower is in the wall panels from the ninth floor up. that's a big moment.
Into the towers rising from the excavation are going some 200,000 pieces of steel having a total weight of about 200,000 tons (about 1/5 of the total weight of the structures). Individual columns in the lower core section, measuring 52 x 22 in. in plan, are formed of 5 and 3-in, plate into almost solid steel shafts that weigh up to 56 tons.
have you heard the paul laffoley interview? he was on the team of architects. he says the buildings were designed for demolition when the bin laden construction company was building them.
here's the interview: mike hagan interview paul laffoley he talks about the towers about a 1/4 of the way through, if you want to skip to the meat.
p.s. my pleasure, quicknthedead.
BS
Arthur
QUOTE
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333
?????
What's your point, there are no reflections in the back window of that BMW(except for the third brake light) no matter how far they are blown up, nor how fuzzy they get and no matter how hard you squint your eyes trying to find any such reflection. Therefor the Havel video is NOT a fraud, YOU ARE. And that video is one of the nails in the coffin for that piece o' crap "paper" you and Ross cooked up with cherry picked data.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333 |
?????
What's your point, there are no reflections in the back window of that BMW(except for the third brake light) no matter how far they are blown up, nor how fuzzy they get and no matter how hard you squint your eyes trying to find any such reflection. Therefor the Havel video is NOT a fraud, YOU ARE. And that video is one of the nails in the coffin for that piece o' crap "paper" you and Ross cooked up with cherry picked data.
Your agreement with an absurd comment shows you lack an understanding of radar.
So all those bombers who dropped window over Germany were wasting their time??? Why were radars able to follow the debris of the Space Shuttle Columbia all the way to the ground when it ceased to be the SS somewhere over Texas??? When a plane is hit by an air to air missile does it disappear from the radar screen at that exact moment, or does the radar track the wreckage to the ground??? What is it following if the plane has blown to pieces???
Your lies have been exposed, you are just mentally incapable of accepting the humiliation for being so wrong for so long and having that fact thrown in your face every time you bring it up. Were I so thouroughly punked as you have been I would be too embarrassed to show my face again, so I can understand how you must feel. But the facts are out, you no longer have any excuse for not knowing those facts and we know that lying for Christ is not a Christian value. So here is my first(and probably last) quoting of scripture in this thread, but I thought it particularly appropriate, given your behavior.
1 John 2,4
Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
Grumpy
talk about a progressive collapse.
the moment is building.
looking for peers in an ocean of 'handwaving' and 'proof by intimidation', - david griscom
the moment is building.
looking for peers in an ocean of 'handwaving' and 'proof by intimidation', - david griscom
QUOTE
this number is still far less than the “2000%” live loads (20 times the weight of the block) that the exterior columns alone were designed to withstand for brief moments (see above).
Not to long to find one of SEVERAL MAJOR OOPS in this farce of a paper.
Which hits its high note here:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| this number is still far less than the “2000%” live loads (20 times the weight of the block) that the exterior columns alone were designed to withstand for brief moments (see above). |
Not to long to find one of SEVERAL MAJOR OOPS in this farce of a paper.
Which hits its high note here:
Moreover, even neglecting the different strengths of steel at different temperatures, it is astronomically improbable that approximately 250 steel columns would fail due to “natural causes” within the same very short time interval. In more popular language, this hidden assumption underlying Dr. Garcia's calculation is "statistically impossible."
But there IS one way that all 250 some columns could have lost all strength simultaneously. It's called CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True”:
ROTFLMAO
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 21 2007, 06:56 PM)
notsoquick
?????
What's your point, there are no reflections in the back window of that BMW(except for the third brake light) no matter how far they are blown up, nor how fuzzy they get and no matter how hard you squint your eyes trying to find any such reflection. Therefor the Havel video is NOT a fraud, YOU ARE. And that video is one of the nails in the coffin for that piece o' crap "paper" you and Ross cooked up with cherry picked data.
So all those bombers who dropped window over Germany were wasting their time??? Why were radars able to follow the debris of the Space Shuttle Columbia all the way to the ground when it ceased to be the SS somewhere over Texas??? When a plane is hit by an air to air missile does it disappear from the radar screen at that exact moment, or does the radar track the wreckage to the ground??? What is it following if the plane has blown to pieces???
Your lies have been exposed, you are just mentally incapable of accepting the humiliation for being so wrong for so long and having that fact thrown in your face every time you bring it up. Were I so thouroughly punked as you have been I would be too embarrassed to show my face again, so I can understand how you must feel. But the facts are out, you no longer have any excuse for not knowing those facts and we know that lying for Christ is not a Christian value. So here is my first(and probably last) quoting of scripture in this thread, but I thought it particularly appropriate, given your behavior.
1 John 2,4
Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
Grumpy
You are blind regarding the Hlava video, which has fraud all over it.
But thanks for the Scripture.
THE GRASS WITHERS THE FLOWERS FADE
BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD STANDS FOREVER
?????
What's your point, there are no reflections in the back window of that BMW(except for the third brake light) no matter how far they are blown up, nor how fuzzy they get and no matter how hard you squint your eyes trying to find any such reflection. Therefor the Havel video is NOT a fraud, YOU ARE. And that video is one of the nails in the coffin for that piece o' crap "paper" you and Ross cooked up with cherry picked data.
So all those bombers who dropped window over Germany were wasting their time??? Why were radars able to follow the debris of the Space Shuttle Columbia all the way to the ground when it ceased to be the SS somewhere over Texas??? When a plane is hit by an air to air missile does it disappear from the radar screen at that exact moment, or does the radar track the wreckage to the ground??? What is it following if the plane has blown to pieces???
Your lies have been exposed, you are just mentally incapable of accepting the humiliation for being so wrong for so long and having that fact thrown in your face every time you bring it up. Were I so thouroughly punked as you have been I would be too embarrassed to show my face again, so I can understand how you must feel. But the facts are out, you no longer have any excuse for not knowing those facts and we know that lying for Christ is not a Christian value. So here is my first(and probably last) quoting of scripture in this thread, but I thought it particularly appropriate, given your behavior.
1 John 2,4
Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
Grumpy
You are blind regarding the Hlava video, which has fraud all over it.
But thanks for the Scripture.
THE GRASS WITHERS THE FLOWERS FADE
BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD STANDS FOREVER
Aha. While the description of the clamped portal frame was correct, the comparison was not. I'll try again, still following worked out examples in Fundamentals of Structural Stability by Simitses & Hodges.
The equation is question for the critical load of the two structures to be compared is
P = kEI/L^2
for differing constants k. For a single column clamped at the bottom and free at the top, k = 2.46 (page 56).
Now consider a simple partial frame. This consists of a simply supported single column which at the top is rigidly connected to a single beam. The other end of the beam is clamped to a wall. The load is applied at the top of the column. Assuming the beam is as long as the column is tall and that both the beam and column have the same EI, k = 14.66 (page 126).
So the simple partial frame is 5.6 times as resistent to buckling as the clamped column alone. This matches intuition.
The equation is question for the critical load of the two structures to be compared is
P = kEI/L^2
for differing constants k. For a single column clamped at the bottom and free at the top, k = 2.46 (page 56).
Now consider a simple partial frame. This consists of a simply supported single column which at the top is rigidly connected to a single beam. The other end of the beam is clamped to a wall. The load is applied at the top of the column. Assuming the beam is as long as the column is tall and that both the beam and column have the same EI, k = 14.66 (page 126).
So the simple partial frame is 5.6 times as resistent to buckling as the clamped column alone. This matches intuition.
notsoquick
No, it doesn't. The only fraud here is you. Continue lying for Jesus all you like, you don't fool anyone but your fellow tinhatters, though, come to think about it, none of them see phantom fire trucks in the video either, so the fool here is YOU.
You are a joke, your whole theory depends on falsifying the Haval video, which you have failed spectacularly and hilareously to do. But don't worry too much about Havel, your paper was crap before that video surfaced, it remains crap today and it will remain crap from now on. There were no basement bombs, no cutting charges and no explosives are required to explain anything that happened on 9/11. That you are too...intelligently challenged to understand this fact doesn't change a thing.
Grumpy
QUOTE
You are blind regarding the Hlava video, which has fraud all over it.
No, it doesn't. The only fraud here is you. Continue lying for Jesus all you like, you don't fool anyone but your fellow tinhatters, though, come to think about it, none of them see phantom fire trucks in the video either, so the fool here is YOU.
You are a joke, your whole theory depends on falsifying the Haval video, which you have failed spectacularly and hilareously to do. But don't worry too much about Havel, your paper was crap before that video surfaced, it remains crap today and it will remain crap from now on. There were no basement bombs, no cutting charges and no explosives are required to explain anything that happened on 9/11. That you are too...intelligently challenged to understand this fact doesn't change a thing.
Grumpy
UL Truth Is Not a Matter of Popularity
blogged by Kevin Ryan at:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8038
“In fact, Underwriter Laboratories does not certify structural steel.”
David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics [1]
We now know that US Government scientists were not able to produce evidence for "widely dislodged" fireproofing within the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Because of this, the distinction between the fire-based hypothesis of collapse and the demolition hypothesis centers on one question. Were the steel assemblies used to construct those buildings tested for fire resistance as required by the New York City code?.
As I have stated many times in public, UL made it clear to me and others that they performed this testing. Of course I have their statements on the subject in writing, and I would have been a fool to have made such claims publicly without possessing such documentation. In contrast, Mr. Dunbar of Popular Mechanics does not seem to mind acting like an irresponsible fool in public, as his statement above indicates. His statement is foolish because it is widely known that UL does test and certify structural components for buildings such as the World Trade Center towers.
Even beginning students know that UL is one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119." [2] The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) itself made this point clear in their WTC report by saying "the UL Fire Resistance Directory ...is the major reference used by architects and engineers to select designs that meet the building code requirements for fire resistance ratings." [3]
Additionally UL's own Tom Chapin, the Chemist and manager of their Fire Protection division, with whom I was in contact, admitted to UL's involvment in testing steel for the WTC in a letter to the New York Times editor published April 15, 2002. In this letter, Chapin said "The World Trade Center stood for almost an hour after withstanding conditions well beyond those experienced in any typical fire. In that time, thousands of people escaped with their lives. ASTM E-119 and UL's testing procedures helped make that possible." [4]
Popular Mechanics’ poor editorial practices and weak understanding of conformance testing are not the only reasons behind the false “UL does not certify structural steel” statement, however. UL made a similar statement themselves, shortly after firing me for speaking out and asking for clarification. They denied their own responsibility even after admitting publicly that their testing was related to the WTC tower’s performance. To make matters worse, UL exacerbated this denial with the additional claim that there was “no evidence” that any firm tested the steel.
Why would UL need to make this secondary claim of “no evidence” if they were never involved? Better yet, why would UL lie to the public at all, and how could they get away with it?
The “why” is easy enough to understand. UL is a tax-exempt organization (we pay their taxes for them), and requires good government relations to maintain this status. Additionally, given the fire-based explanation for collapse, whatever firm tested the WTC tower’s assemblies for fire resistance was at risk for a huge liability.
The question of how they could get away with such obvious lies is a matter of semantic deception. It is simply a cowardly distinction between “structural steel” and “steel assemblies used within a structure” that is behind these false remarks by UL and Popular Mechanics (PM). But these liars know that willing listeners, looking for easy answers that divert attention away from the painful evidence for the demolition hypothesis, will buy just about anything to avoid the truth.
I often wonder what UL might have said if 3,000 people had died from water contamination on 9/11/01. If it had been clear that the water testing division I managed was responsible for the compliance testing required to avoid such a catastrophe, it’s likely that UL and PM would have said something like ”UL does not test water”. Of course that misleading statement could be used only if one resorted to deceptive semantics again. That is, UL tests for contaminants in the water, they don’t test the water itself.
Those lying to us about 9/11 may feel that they have no reason to fear retribution. For example, we can choose to buy Popular Mechanics’ lies or not buy them, depending on whether we are looking for easy answers or truthful ones. In choosing, we can guess at UL’s motivations for lying, and we know the Hearst Corporation (Popular Mechanics’ parent company) has a long history in the business of propaganda.
But we can’t choose whether or not we care to pay UL’s taxes for them. As long as UL remains in good standing with the government, the American public must dole out the corporate welfare that supports them.
My ongoing lawsuit against UL will not only hold them accountable for their responsibility to public safety, it will help determine the future of our country.[5] Can someone openly speak obvious truths, no matter how sensitive, in America today? We may soon find out. At the direction of the US Federal Court in Indianapolis, lawyers representing myself and UL have begun mapping out a case management plan. It is already clear that UL made a significant mistake in firing me, as indicated by the fact that they have hired several very large law firms to support them instead of handling this simple “water-tester” with the team of attorneys already on their payroll.
How about Democracy Now and Popular Mechanics? Will they allow me to defend myself against their libelous claims in a public forum? It is doubtful, but I will offer an open invitation to David Dunbar to publicly debate me on the merits of the official conspiracy theory, and the evidence for the demolition hypothesis, whenever he feels that he finally has his facts straight.. I’m sure that Democracy Now would be glad to put us on the air.
In the meantime, we should all remember that over two thousand Americans, and countless thousands of others, have died in the 9/11 Wars since I was fired for speaking out. And only the lies of cowards like UL and Popular Mechanics stand between an escalation of those wars and the chance to pursue a lasting peace.
For the victims of 9/11, the victims of the 9/11 Wars, and for future generations, I will continue fighting those lies. You can count on it.
1. Debate between editors of Popular Mechanics and the makers of the film Loose Change, Democracy Now, September 11, 2006 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
2. Samuel H. Marcus, Basics of Structural Steel (Reston, Va.: Reston Publishing 1977), 20
3. Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," May 2005, Appendix A
4. J. Thomas Chapin, General Mgr., Fire Protection Div.
Underwriters Laboratories, Letter to the editor entitled Fire Test is Sound, New York Times, April 15, 2002.
5. Legal Defense Fund for Kevin Ryan, http://www.ultruth.com/
Vote Result
(emphasis mine)
blogged by Kevin Ryan at:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8038
QUOTE
“In fact, Underwriter Laboratories does not certify structural steel.”
David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics [1]
We now know that US Government scientists were not able to produce evidence for "widely dislodged" fireproofing within the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Because of this, the distinction between the fire-based hypothesis of collapse and the demolition hypothesis centers on one question. Were the steel assemblies used to construct those buildings tested for fire resistance as required by the New York City code?.
As I have stated many times in public, UL made it clear to me and others that they performed this testing. Of course I have their statements on the subject in writing, and I would have been a fool to have made such claims publicly without possessing such documentation. In contrast, Mr. Dunbar of Popular Mechanics does not seem to mind acting like an irresponsible fool in public, as his statement above indicates. His statement is foolish because it is widely known that UL does test and certify structural components for buildings such as the World Trade Center towers.
Even beginning students know that UL is one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119." [2] The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) itself made this point clear in their WTC report by saying "the UL Fire Resistance Directory ...is the major reference used by architects and engineers to select designs that meet the building code requirements for fire resistance ratings." [3]
Additionally UL's own Tom Chapin, the Chemist and manager of their Fire Protection division, with whom I was in contact, admitted to UL's involvment in testing steel for the WTC in a letter to the New York Times editor published April 15, 2002. In this letter, Chapin said "The World Trade Center stood for almost an hour after withstanding conditions well beyond those experienced in any typical fire. In that time, thousands of people escaped with their lives. ASTM E-119 and UL's testing procedures helped make that possible." [4]
Popular Mechanics’ poor editorial practices and weak understanding of conformance testing are not the only reasons behind the false “UL does not certify structural steel” statement, however. UL made a similar statement themselves, shortly after firing me for speaking out and asking for clarification. They denied their own responsibility even after admitting publicly that their testing was related to the WTC tower’s performance. To make matters worse, UL exacerbated this denial with the additional claim that there was “no evidence” that any firm tested the steel.
Why would UL need to make this secondary claim of “no evidence” if they were never involved? Better yet, why would UL lie to the public at all, and how could they get away with it?
The “why” is easy enough to understand. UL is a tax-exempt organization (we pay their taxes for them), and requires good government relations to maintain this status. Additionally, given the fire-based explanation for collapse, whatever firm tested the WTC tower’s assemblies for fire resistance was at risk for a huge liability.
The question of how they could get away with such obvious lies is a matter of semantic deception. It is simply a cowardly distinction between “structural steel” and “steel assemblies used within a structure” that is behind these false remarks by UL and Popular Mechanics (PM). But these liars know that willing listeners, looking for easy answers that divert attention away from the painful evidence for the demolition hypothesis, will buy just about anything to avoid the truth.
I often wonder what UL might have said if 3,000 people had died from water contamination on 9/11/01. If it had been clear that the water testing division I managed was responsible for the compliance testing required to avoid such a catastrophe, it’s likely that UL and PM would have said something like ”UL does not test water”. Of course that misleading statement could be used only if one resorted to deceptive semantics again. That is, UL tests for contaminants in the water, they don’t test the water itself.
Those lying to us about 9/11 may feel that they have no reason to fear retribution. For example, we can choose to buy Popular Mechanics’ lies or not buy them, depending on whether we are looking for easy answers or truthful ones. In choosing, we can guess at UL’s motivations for lying, and we know the Hearst Corporation (Popular Mechanics’ parent company) has a long history in the business of propaganda.
But we can’t choose whether or not we care to pay UL’s taxes for them. As long as UL remains in good standing with the government, the American public must dole out the corporate welfare that supports them.
My ongoing lawsuit against UL will not only hold them accountable for their responsibility to public safety, it will help determine the future of our country.[5] Can someone openly speak obvious truths, no matter how sensitive, in America today? We may soon find out. At the direction of the US Federal Court in Indianapolis, lawyers representing myself and UL have begun mapping out a case management plan. It is already clear that UL made a significant mistake in firing me, as indicated by the fact that they have hired several very large law firms to support them instead of handling this simple “water-tester” with the team of attorneys already on their payroll.
How about Democracy Now and Popular Mechanics? Will they allow me to defend myself against their libelous claims in a public forum? It is doubtful, but I will offer an open invitation to David Dunbar to publicly debate me on the merits of the official conspiracy theory, and the evidence for the demolition hypothesis, whenever he feels that he finally has his facts straight.. I’m sure that Democracy Now would be glad to put us on the air.
In the meantime, we should all remember that over two thousand Americans, and countless thousands of others, have died in the 9/11 Wars since I was fired for speaking out. And only the lies of cowards like UL and Popular Mechanics stand between an escalation of those wars and the chance to pursue a lasting peace.
For the victims of 9/11, the victims of the 9/11 Wars, and for future generations, I will continue fighting those lies. You can count on it.
1. Debate between editors of Popular Mechanics and the makers of the film Loose Change, Democracy Now, September 11, 2006 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
2. Samuel H. Marcus, Basics of Structural Steel (Reston, Va.: Reston Publishing 1977), 20
3. Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," May 2005, Appendix A
4. J. Thomas Chapin, General Mgr., Fire Protection Div.
Underwriters Laboratories, Letter to the editor entitled Fire Test is Sound, New York Times, April 15, 2002.
5. Legal Defense Fund for Kevin Ryan, http://www.ultruth.com/
Vote Result
(emphasis mine)
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 22 2007, 03:58 PM)
notsoquick
No, it doesn't. The only fraud here is you. Continue lying for Jesus all you like, you don't fool anyone but your fellow tinhatters, though, come to think about it, none of them see phantom fire trucks in the video either, so the fool here is YOU.
You are a joke, your whole theory depends on falsifying the Haval video, which you have failed spectacularly and hilareously to do. But don't worry too much about Havel, your paper was crap before that video surfaced, it remains crap today and it will remain crap from now on. There were no basement bombs, no cutting charges and no explosives are required to explain anything that happened on 9/11. That you are too...intelligently challenged to understand this fact doesn't change a thing.
Grumpy
You are wrong every time, just like the OCT.
Thanks for the good article you linked, newton.
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01...ics-of-911.html
Even those without degrees in Physics can see that these "collapses" don't make sense, the fact that all three of the buildings at the WTC on 9/11 fell near free-fall speed.
What happened to the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What happened to the resistance of the 47 steel columns of the core?
Answer: NOTHING, because these were controlled demolitions (the only logical answer that fits the data).
And why didn't NIST continue its study for what happened AFTER "global collapse initiation"?
Answer: From the beginning, their mandate was to provide backup to the false claims of the OCT, and they knew that dealing with the truth for what happened AFTER the beginning of the buildings' destruction WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE FALSE CLAIMS OF THE OCT.
This is not rocket science.
9/11 WAS an inside job, and a new REAL investigation is needed NOW.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...longAndRoss.pdf
PRAY WITHOUT CEASING
No, it doesn't. The only fraud here is you. Continue lying for Jesus all you like, you don't fool anyone but your fellow tinhatters, though, come to think about it, none of them see phantom fire trucks in the video either, so the fool here is YOU.
You are a joke, your whole theory depends on falsifying the Haval video, which you have failed spectacularly and hilareously to do. But don't worry too much about Havel, your paper was crap before that video surfaced, it remains crap today and it will remain crap from now on. There were no basement bombs, no cutting charges and no explosives are required to explain anything that happened on 9/11. That you are too...intelligently challenged to understand this fact doesn't change a thing.
Grumpy
You are wrong every time, just like the OCT.
Thanks for the good article you linked, newton.
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01...ics-of-911.html
Even those without degrees in Physics can see that these "collapses" don't make sense, the fact that all three of the buildings at the WTC on 9/11 fell near free-fall speed.
What happened to the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What happened to the resistance of the 47 steel columns of the core?
Answer: NOTHING, because these were controlled demolitions (the only logical answer that fits the data).
And why didn't NIST continue its study for what happened AFTER "global collapse initiation"?
Answer: From the beginning, their mandate was to provide backup to the false claims of the OCT, and they knew that dealing with the truth for what happened AFTER the beginning of the buildings' destruction WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE FALSE CLAIMS OF THE OCT.
This is not rocket science.
9/11 WAS an inside job, and a new REAL investigation is needed NOW.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161333
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...longAndRoss.pdf
PRAY WITHOUT CEASING
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 22 2007, 04:27 PM)
UL Truth Is Not a Matter of Popularity
blogged by Kevin Ryan at:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8038
(emphasis mine)
Thanks, metamars. Excellent piece by Kevin Ryan.
Here is a cogent sentence he wrote: "Those lying to us about 9/11 may feel that they have no reason to fear retribution."
This is something they should dwell upon.
THE FEAR OF THE LORD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM
blogged by Kevin Ryan at:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8038
(emphasis mine)
Thanks, metamars. Excellent piece by Kevin Ryan.
Here is a cogent sentence he wrote: "Those lying to us about 9/11 may feel that they have no reason to fear retribution."
This is something they should dwell upon.
THE FEAR OF THE LORD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 22 2007, 11:58 PM)
Even those without degrees in Physics can see that these "collapses" don't make sense, the fact that all three of the buildings at the WTC on 9/11 fell near free-fall speed.
But using actual measurements, it is possible to determine that for the first few seconds
WTC 1 was accelerating at about (2/3)g
WTC 2 was accelerating at about (3/4)g
so there was resistance and neither tower fell at the non-existent 'free-fall speed'.
Indeed, the Greening-style analysis, equivalently the Bazant & Verdure differential equations, fully take into account conservation of energy and momentum.
We have been over this again and again...
But using actual measurements, it is possible to determine that for the first few seconds
WTC 1 was accelerating at about (2/3)g
WTC 2 was accelerating at about (3/4)g
so there was resistance and neither tower fell at the non-existent 'free-fall speed'.
Indeed, the Greening-style analysis, equivalently the Bazant & Verdure differential equations, fully take into account conservation of energy and momentum.
We have been over this again and again...
Just a comment about ASTM E-119 as covered by NIST NCSTAR 1-6B :
NIST could not find a supplier for the 1969-vintage steel needed for a WTC truss assembly test so used a substitute.
And NIST could not get a truss assembly welded according to 1969 approved procedures, so used a substitute welding procedure.
I am not knocking NIST for doing this... what else could it do?
As far as NIST was concerned,
any test was better than no test....
But it is important to recognize that NIST NCSTAR 1-6B
is all about "passing" ASTM E-119 (unexposed temps below 139 deg C, temp of steel below 704 deg C, etc.),
than carrying out a scientific investigation of what really happened to trusses made from real WTC steel with real WTC wiring and real WTC plenum cabling and real PVC floor tiling.....
NIST could not find a supplier for the 1969-vintage steel needed for a WTC truss assembly test so used a substitute.
And NIST could not get a truss assembly welded according to 1969 approved procedures, so used a substitute welding procedure.
I am not knocking NIST for doing this... what else could it do?
As far as NIST was concerned,
any test was better than no test....
But it is important to recognize that NIST NCSTAR 1-6B
is all about "passing" ASTM E-119 (unexposed temps below 139 deg C, temp of steel below 704 deg C, etc.),
than carrying out a scientific investigation of what really happened to trusses made from real WTC steel with real WTC wiring and real WTC plenum cabling and real PVC floor tiling.....
NEU-FONZE --- It is, I think, even more approximate than that if I am right in my understanding that the trusses came from three different vendors...
I've come to the conclusion that the ONLY thing that would satisfy Neu is NIST built a WTC replica, put sensors all over it and then flew a 767 into it.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2007, 06:24 PM)
Not to long to find one of SEVERAL MAJOR OOPS in this farce of a paper.
Which hits its high note here:
ROTFLMAO
Arthur
QUOTE
Name: David L Griscom
Location: San Carlos, Sonora, MX
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 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-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 1997. Invited Professor 2000-2004: Universités de Paris-6&7, Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona 2004-2005.
My published works are highly respected by my peers according to my score (h=39) on the recently devised Hirsch index [J.E. Hirsch, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 0507655102 (2005)]. This means that 39 of the 185 total papers of which I am the principal author or a coauthor have each been cited at least 39 times in other refereed publications.
Location: San Carlos, Sonora, MX
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 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-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 1997. Invited Professor 2000-2004: Universités de Paris-6&7, Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona 2004-2005.
My published works are highly respected by my peers according to my score (h=39) on the recently devised Hirsch index [J.E. Hirsch, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 0507655102 (2005)]. This means that 39 of the 185 total papers of which I am the principal author or a coauthor have each been cited at least 39 times in other refereed publications.
whatever, buddy. nice hand waving and proof by intimidation, arthurs.
the 2000% figure is from the "engineering news record". i do not find that figure outrageous, at all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Name: David L Griscom Location: San Carlos, Sonora, MX 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 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-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 1997. Invited Professor 2000-2004: Universités de Paris-6&7, Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona 2004-2005. My published works are highly respected by my peers according to my score (h=39) on the recently devised Hirsch index [J.E. Hirsch, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 0507655102 (2005)]. This means that 39 of the 185 total papers of which I am the principal author or a coauthor have each been cited at least 39 times in other refereed publications. |
whatever, buddy. nice hand waving and proof by intimidation, arthurs.
the 2000% figure is from the "engineering news record". i do not find that figure outrageous, at all.
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS
For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.
the whole engineering news record article
QUOTE
The largest contract for fabrication of structural steel is held by Pacific Car and Foundry Co., of Seattle. It is $21.79 million for 55,000 tons of steel for the towers' bearing wall panels from the ninth floor up.
In all there are 5,828 of these panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons.
55, 000 tons of the total weight of one tower is in the wall panels from the ninth floor up. that's a big moment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The largest contract for fabrication of structural steel is held by Pacific Car and Foundry Co., of Seattle. It is $21.79 million for 55,000 tons of steel for the towers' bearing wall panels from the ninth floor up. In all there are 5,828 of these panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons. |
55, 000 tons of the total weight of one tower is in the wall panels from the ninth floor up. that's a big moment.
Into the towers rising from the excavation are going some 200,000 pieces of steel having a total weight of about 200,000 tons (about 1/5 of the total weight of the structures). Individual columns in the lower core section, measuring 52 x 22 in. in plan, are formed of 5 and 3-in, plate into almost solid steel shafts that weigh up to 56 tons.
have you heard the paul laffoley interview? he was on the team of architects. he says the buildings were designed for demolition when the bin laden construction company was building them.
here's the interview: mike hagan interview paul laffoley he talks about the towers about a 1/4 of the way through, if you want to skip to the meat.
p.s. my pleasure, quicknthedead.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 23 2007, 01:12 AM)
I've come to the conclusion that the ONLY thing that would satisfy Neu is NIST built a WTC replica, put sensors all over it and then flew[sic] a 767 into it.
Even then I am sure he would still be able to find something to criticize.
Even then I am sure he would still be able to find something to criticize.
Well here we have:
Name: David L Griscom
Location: San Carlos, Sonora, MX
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 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-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 1997. Invited Professor 2000-2004: Universités de Paris-6&7, Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona 2004-2005.
My published works are highly respected by my peers according to my score (h=39) on the recently devised Hirsch index [J.E. Hirsch, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 0507655102 (2005)]. This means that 39 of the 185 total papers of which I am the principal author or a coauthor have each been cited at least 39 times in other refereed publications.
So the question is:
WHERE IS HIS PEER REVIEWED PAPER ON THE WTC????????
Seems to be MISSING IN ACTION.
Arthur
Name: David L Griscom
Location: San Carlos, Sonora, MX
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 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-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 1997. Invited Professor 2000-2004: Universités de Paris-6&7, Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona 2004-2005.
My published works are highly respected by my peers according to my score (h=39) on the recently devised Hirsch index [J.E. Hirsch, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 0507655102 (2005)]. This means that 39 of the 185 total papers of which I am the principal author or a coauthor have each been cited at least 39 times in other refereed publications.
So the question is:
WHERE IS HIS PEER REVIEWED PAPER ON THE WTC????????
Seems to be MISSING IN ACTION.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 23 2007, 02:32 AM)
So the question is:
WHERE IS HIS PEER REVIEWED PAPER ON THE WTC????????
I haven't seen any published papers by him regarding the WTC or even unpublished. The way he or they listed his bio sounds more like proof by intimidation or proof by authority.
Griscom had a long list of complaints about Garcia but gave no alternative theory. He then deferred the whole matter to Griffin who has none of the credentials that Griscom does for addressing the physics. Someone of Griscom's stature should be able to formulate his own theory.
WHERE IS HIS PEER REVIEWED PAPER ON THE WTC????????
I haven't seen any published papers by him regarding the WTC or even unpublished. The way he or they listed his bio sounds more like proof by intimidation or proof by authority.
Griscom had a long list of complaints about Garcia but gave no alternative theory. He then deferred the whole matter to Griffin who has none of the credentials that Griscom does for addressing the physics. Someone of Griscom's stature should be able to formulate his own theory.
Yup
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 23 2007, 02:32 AM)
Well here we have:
Name: David L Griscom
Location: San Carlos, Sonora, MX
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 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-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 1997. Invited Professor 2000-2004: Universités de Paris-6&7, Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona 2004-2005.
My published works are highly respected by my peers according to my score (h=39) on the recently devised Hirsch index [J.E. Hirsch, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 0507655102 (2005)]. This means that 39 of the 185 total papers of which I am the principal author or a coauthor have each been cited at least 39 times in other refereed publications.
So the question is:
WHERE IS HIS PEER REVIEWED PAPER ON THE WTC????????
Seems to be MISSING IN ACTION.
Arthur
he encouraged others to come forward and join the effort. i guess you didn't bother to read, arthurs.
wow.
am i surprised.
trickle down, little stream, trickle down.
here's something else new on you tube from john kerry....skull and bones boy slips his tongue up the wrong hole.
who's next? cheney? oh, right. he's going to get impeached.
the cabal is going down. too bad you junkyard dogs won't get fed anymore.
Name: David L Griscom
Location: San Carlos, Sonora, MX
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 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-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 1997. Invited Professor 2000-2004: Universités de Paris-6&7, Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona 2004-2005.
My published works are highly respected by my peers according to my score (h=39) on the recently devised Hirsch index [J.E. Hirsch, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 0507655102 (2005)]. This means that 39 of the 185 total papers of which I am the principal author or a coauthor have each been cited at least 39 times in other refereed publications.
So the question is:
WHERE IS HIS PEER REVIEWED PAPER ON THE WTC????????
Seems to be MISSING IN ACTION.
Arthur
he encouraged others to come forward and join the effort. i guess you didn't bother to read, arthurs.
wow.
am i surprised.
trickle down, little stream, trickle down.
here's something else new on you tube from john kerry....skull and bones boy slips his tongue up the wrong hole.
who's next? cheney? oh, right. he's going to get impeached.
the cabal is going down. too bad you junkyard dogs won't get fed anymore.
QUOTE (shagster+Apr 23 2007, 03:57 AM)
I haven't seen any published papers by him regarding the WTC or even unpublished. The way he or they listed his bio sounds more like proof by intimidation or proof by authority.
Griscom had a long list of complaints about Garcia but gave no alternative theory. He then deferred the whole matter to Griffin who has none of the credentials that Griscom does for addressing the physics. Someone of Griscom's stature should be able to formulate his own theory.
he simply cites griffin's work. he obviously has studied it, and agrees with it. why be redundant? it's not like the truth is going to fall down.
smart man.
Griscom had a long list of complaints about Garcia but gave no alternative theory. He then deferred the whole matter to Griffin who has none of the credentials that Griscom does for addressing the physics. Someone of Griscom's stature should be able to formulate his own theory.
he simply cites griffin's work. he obviously has studied it, and agrees with it. why be redundant? it's not like the truth is going to fall down.
smart man.
FEA of NIST theory on youtube
proving me right again. the trusses fail at the truss seats, and have no strength for pulling in the massive columns.
no pulled in perimeter by trusses.
no instant release one storey drop.
no official bull will fly.
proving me right again. the trusses fail at the truss seats, and have no strength for pulling in the massive columns.
no pulled in perimeter by trusses.
no instant release one storey drop.
no official bull will fly.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 23 2007, 12:19 AM)
so there was resistance and neither tower fell at the non-existent 'free-fall speed'.
Indeed, the Greening-style analysis, equivalently the Bazant & Verdure differential equations, fully take into account conservation of energy and momentum.
We have been over this again and again...
DBB or someone else, could you explain why
1) crush-down is independent of the crush-up and no coupled process and they happen in a sequence
2) the E1 per story model is the only valid one
I think a model is just a model and that there are also models that don't lead to a global collapse.
Indeed, the Greening-style analysis, equivalently the Bazant & Verdure differential equations, fully take into account conservation of energy and momentum.
We have been over this again and again...
DBB or someone else, could you explain why
1) crush-down is independent of the crush-up and no coupled process and they happen in a sequence
2) the E1 per story model is the only valid one
I think a model is just a model and that there are also models that don't lead to a global collapse.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 23 2007, 12:13 AM)
Thanks, metamars. Excellent piece by Kevin Ryan.
Here is a cogent sentence he wrote: "Those lying to us about 9/11 may feel that they have no reason to fear retribution."
This is something they should dwell upon.
THE FEAR OF THE LORD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM
I'm pretty sure Ryan was referring to retribution in the temporal sense of this lifetime. In my view, the government is so corrupt and the people are so jaded and/or demoralized, that the chances of such "retribution" in the near future are not good. E.g., I heard a recent interview of Noam Chomsky (see democracynow.org) wherein he cited a poll that said that about 1/3 of Americans believe that the Bush Administration was behind 911, and don't care. (Unfortunately, he didn't give details.)
But pursuing retribution, per se, would not be a very enlightened attitude, now would it? Pursuing justice is the noble goal, not retribution, even if the results look the same to the guilty parties. And more important than pursuing justice is pursuing change. We can't bring the dead back to life. And even if 10 or 20 people get thrown in jail for treason, if the system remains corrupt, what is to prevent another 911 from happening the very next day?
As for retribution in the long run, wherein one experiences the just fruits of one's actions, delivered by the Divine, or Divine Law, now that's a different matter. I think that you and I might agree that "God is not mocked." But I also believe that one can only learn from one's own experiences, which are fraught with errors. And furthermore, if one can't feel compassion and hope for evil-doers, one has not only missed the point of the New Testament, but will also lack compassion for oneself.
I would much prefer a South Africa style "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" approach to the murderers.
Here is a cogent sentence he wrote: "Those lying to us about 9/11 may feel that they have no reason to fear retribution."
This is something they should dwell upon.
THE FEAR OF THE LORD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM
I'm pretty sure Ryan was referring to retribution in the temporal sense of this lifetime. In my view, the government is so corrupt and the people are so jaded and/or demoralized, that the chances of such "retribution" in the near future are not good. E.g., I heard a recent interview of Noam Chomsky (see democracynow.org) wherein he cited a poll that said that about 1/3 of Americans believe that the Bush Administration was behind 911, and don't care. (Unfortunately, he didn't give details.)
But pursuing retribution, per se, would not be a very enlightened attitude, now would it? Pursuing justice is the noble goal, not retribution, even if the results look the same to the guilty parties. And more important than pursuing justice is pursuing change. We can't bring the dead back to life. And even if 10 or 20 people get thrown in jail for treason, if the system remains corrupt, what is to prevent another 911 from happening the very next day?
As for retribution in the long run, wherein one experiences the just fruits of one's actions, delivered by the Divine, or Divine Law, now that's a different matter. I think that you and I might agree that "God is not mocked." But I also believe that one can only learn from one's own experiences, which are fraught with errors. And furthermore, if one can't feel compassion and hope for evil-doers, one has not only missed the point of the New Testament, but will also lack compassion for oneself.
I would much prefer a South Africa style "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" approach to the murderers.
QUOTE
a poll that said that about 1/3 of Americans believe that the Bush Administration was behind 911
BS
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.