Here is the WTC2 footprint in the foreground, WTC1 in the upper right. You can see WTC6, which is 8 stories. Notice how the 8 story building looks to be about 8 stories taller than the WTC1 rubble pile.
Ace we have been over this before.
Surely your memory isn't THAT bad?
As a REFERENCE to the pictures of the debris pile, where the "Tridents" went from a single column to three columns was ~ 120 ft above the lower basement floor.
Arthur
Surely your memory isn't THAT bad?
As a REFERENCE to the pictures of the debris pile, where the "Tridents" went from a single column to three columns was ~ 120 ft above the lower basement floor.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2007, 06:48 PM)
Ace we have been over this before.
Surely your memory isn't THAT bad?
As a REFERENCE to the pictures of the debris pile, where the "Tridents" went from a single column to three columns was ~ 120 ft above the lower basement floor.
Arthur
David Benson said that the "pile" was 9-11 stories above the ground. The picture I posted proves this is false.
Yes, I remember quite clearly how OCTs attempt to claim that "it all went in the basement". I have repeatedly asked for evidence, and none has emerged. You choose to believe that the basements are full of rubble, and you do so based on no evidence. That is a very unscientific thing to do.
Surely your memory isn't THAT bad?
As a REFERENCE to the pictures of the debris pile, where the "Tridents" went from a single column to three columns was ~ 120 ft above the lower basement floor.
Arthur
David Benson said that the "pile" was 9-11 stories above the ground. The picture I posted proves this is false.
Yes, I remember quite clearly how OCTs attempt to claim that "it all went in the basement". I have repeatedly asked for evidence, and none has emerged. You choose to believe that the basements are full of rubble, and you do so based on no evidence. That is a very unscientific thing to do.
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 22 2007, 05:13 PM)
Here's a better look at the beam that's not a beam.
It's a perimeter column assembly from one of the towers.
It is a perimeter section from the north face of WTC1, impaled into WFC3. It is among the approximately 20% of the permieter steel which survived the disintegration.
It's a perimeter column assembly from one of the towers.
It is a perimeter section from the north face of WTC1, impaled into WFC3. It is among the approximately 20% of the permieter steel which survived the disintegration.
AceBaker:
Any picture of Ground Zero should not be offered as proof of the size of the rubble pile unless it is dated. Do you have a date for your picture? Material was carted away at an amazing rate so the height of the debris in the footprints of each tower diminished quite rapidly.
Please look at Joel Meyerowitz's book AFTERMATH. It has a remarkable photo on page 27 of the south tower rubble pile taken on the 23rd of September. I would say the height of the pile was at least 60 feet at that time.
Then go to pages 100 to 170 of the book and find lots of pictures taken in the last week of OCTOBER and the rubble piles in the footprints of the towers are not nearly as impressive!
A picture on page 157 has the caption:
"By the end of October (2001), seven hundred thousand pounds of debris had been removed .... and a new road into the valley between the towers had been cleared from West Street."
Only 6 months after September 11th, Ground Zero was no more than a large pit, pretty much as it is today....
NF
Any picture of Ground Zero should not be offered as proof of the size of the rubble pile unless it is dated. Do you have a date for your picture? Material was carted away at an amazing rate so the height of the debris in the footprints of each tower diminished quite rapidly.
Please look at Joel Meyerowitz's book AFTERMATH. It has a remarkable photo on page 27 of the south tower rubble pile taken on the 23rd of September. I would say the height of the pile was at least 60 feet at that time.
Then go to pages 100 to 170 of the book and find lots of pictures taken in the last week of OCTOBER and the rubble piles in the footprints of the towers are not nearly as impressive!
A picture on page 157 has the caption:
"By the end of October (2001), seven hundred thousand pounds of debris had been removed .... and a new road into the valley between the towers had been cleared from West Street."
Only 6 months after September 11th, Ground Zero was no more than a large pit, pretty much as it is today....
NF
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 22 2007, 02:29 PM)
David Benson said that the "pile" was 9-11 stories above the ground. The picture I posted proves this is false.
Yes, I remember quite clearly how OCTs attempt to claim that "it all went in the basement". I have repeatedly asked for evidence, and none has emerged. You choose to believe that the basements are full of rubble, and you do so based on no evidence. That is a very unscientific thing to do.
You need to learn to read better.
His 9-11 stories includes the 6 basement levels.
As to evidence, nope, ACE, you say you don't believe the Govt Reports on the debris.
Fine, but then it is up to YOU to prove them False, not for others to prove them True.
Arthur
Yes, I remember quite clearly how OCTs attempt to claim that "it all went in the basement". I have repeatedly asked for evidence, and none has emerged. You choose to believe that the basements are full of rubble, and you do so based on no evidence. That is a very unscientific thing to do.
You need to learn to read better.
His 9-11 stories includes the 6 basement levels.
As to evidence, nope, ACE, you say you don't believe the Govt Reports on the debris.
Fine, but then it is up to YOU to prove them False, not for others to prove them True.
Arthur
AceBaker --- reasonwhy previously posted a nice map indicating the amount of damage and debris in the various basement levels of Ground Zero. It is on the part 2 thread.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 22 2007, 07:39 PM)
AceBaker:
Any picture of Ground Zero should not be offered as proof of the size of the rubble pile unless it is dated. Do you have a date for your picture? Material was carted away at an amazing rate so the height of the debris in the footprints of each tower diminished quite rapidly.
Please look at Joel Meyerowitz's book AFTERMATH. It has a remarkable photo on page 27 of the south tower rubble pile taken on the 23rd of September. I would say the height of the pile was at least 60 feet at that time.
Then go to pages 100 to 170 of the book and find lots of pictures taken in the last week of OCTOBER and the rubble piles in the footprints of the towers are not nearly as impressive!
A picture on page 157 has the caption:
"By the end of October (2001), seven hundred thousand pounds of debris had been removed .... and a new road into the valley between the towers had been cleared from West Street."
Only 6 months after September 11th, Ground Zero was no more than a large pit, pretty much as it is today....
NF
We have two pictures of Vesey street dated September 11, 2001. After the twin tower events, before the WTC7 event. Can we all agree there was no significant pile of rubble in Vesey Street, ever?
The NOAA hi-res hunt is from September 23.
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-conte...ages/HiRes.html
I'd like to compare it to the "Aftermath" photo. Expect me to post "Aftermath" photos in the future under fair use.
Any picture of Ground Zero should not be offered as proof of the size of the rubble pile unless it is dated. Do you have a date for your picture? Material was carted away at an amazing rate so the height of the debris in the footprints of each tower diminished quite rapidly.
Please look at Joel Meyerowitz's book AFTERMATH. It has a remarkable photo on page 27 of the south tower rubble pile taken on the 23rd of September. I would say the height of the pile was at least 60 feet at that time.
Then go to pages 100 to 170 of the book and find lots of pictures taken in the last week of OCTOBER and the rubble piles in the footprints of the towers are not nearly as impressive!
A picture on page 157 has the caption:
"By the end of October (2001), seven hundred thousand pounds of debris had been removed .... and a new road into the valley between the towers had been cleared from West Street."
Only 6 months after September 11th, Ground Zero was no more than a large pit, pretty much as it is today....
NF
We have two pictures of Vesey street dated September 11, 2001. After the twin tower events, before the WTC7 event. Can we all agree there was no significant pile of rubble in Vesey Street, ever?
The NOAA hi-res hunt is from September 23.
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-conte...ages/HiRes.html
I'd like to compare it to the "Aftermath" photo. Expect me to post "Aftermath" photos in the future under fair use.
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/
Two days after, looks pretty much like a big pile to me. Notice the quite large track-hoe in the foreground.
Grumpy
Consider the hi-res photo taken on Sept 23rd, recently posted by Ace.
Count the front loaders, the grapplers, the cranes and the many trucks in the photo.
That's should give you an idea of the IMMENSITY of the clean up effort.
What I find amazing is that according to the CT'ers THEY WERE ALL IN ON IT.
Arthur
Count the front loaders, the grapplers, the cranes and the many trucks in the photo.
That's should give you an idea of the IMMENSITY of the clean up effort.
What I find amazing is that according to the CT'ers THEY WERE ALL IN ON IT.
Arthur
AceBaker:
You ask for evidence of rubble in the basement...........
See the photo in AFTERMATH of a cross-section of the material UNDER the North Tower near "Tully Road" on page 229 taken in late December 2001.
And the foldout picture on pages 242 to 245 showing the cleared BATHTUB taken 6 months later. These pictures CLEARLY SHOW that the bathtub/basement was FULL OF DEBRIS!
The caption for the foldout picture reads: "Six months after September 11th ... nearly one million tons of debris removed....."
The BATHTUB was at least 200 m x 200 m X 20 m = 800,000 m^3 and the debris had a density of at least 1000 kg/m3. Hence there was 800,000 tonnes of debris IN THE BATHTUB.
If a total of 1,000,000 tonnes of debris was removed FROM the bathtub, only 200,000 tonnes was OUTSIDE the bathtub, i.e. ABOVE GROUND LEVEL!
NF
You ask for evidence of rubble in the basement...........
See the photo in AFTERMATH of a cross-section of the material UNDER the North Tower near "Tully Road" on page 229 taken in late December 2001.
And the foldout picture on pages 242 to 245 showing the cleared BATHTUB taken 6 months later. These pictures CLEARLY SHOW that the bathtub/basement was FULL OF DEBRIS!
The caption for the foldout picture reads: "Six months after September 11th ... nearly one million tons of debris removed....."
The BATHTUB was at least 200 m x 200 m X 20 m = 800,000 m^3 and the debris had a density of at least 1000 kg/m3. Hence there was 800,000 tonnes of debris IN THE BATHTUB.
If a total of 1,000,000 tonnes of debris was removed FROM the bathtub, only 200,000 tonnes was OUTSIDE the bathtub, i.e. ABOVE GROUND LEVEL!
NF
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 22 2007, 11:57 PM)
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/
Two days after, looks pretty much like a big pile to me. Notice the quite large track-hoe in the foreground.
Grumpy
What street is this, and looking which way?
NEU-FONZE
That data matches the data I saw of 1.6 million tons of debris removed from the basements of the two towers(800,000 from each).
Grumpy
That data matches the data I saw of 1.6 million tons of debris removed from the basements of the two towers(800,000 from each).
Grumpy
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 17 2007, 03:17 PM)
Oh, please, please follow up on this claim. 
How was it "disintegrated?"
What happened to the mass of iron, carbon and other elements that make up steel?
What specific "evidence" do you have that definitively proves that the steel from the top of the building did not survive.
let's hear it, ace, I'm bored and need a good laugh.
How was it "disintegrated?"
I speculate that "they" have figured out how to dissociate steel by exciting the molecules, either at the molecular bonds, or in the nucleus. I speculate that it works by creating interference patterns between two beams, and in the region of the interference one or both of two things happens:
1) Specific molecules absorb energy at this particular wavelength, similar to how a water molecule selectively absorbs microwave radiation, thus breaking chemical bonds and/or splitting the nucleus.
2) Molecules are made to vibrate according to their natural resonant frequency, thus breaking chemical bonds and or splitting the nucleus.
What happened to the mass of iron, carbon and other elements that make up steel?
Some of it fell to the ground as we see in the pictures. Some of it was dissociated into very fine dust, on the order of 1 micron, as we see in the pictures. Some of it was converted into energy, according to E=mc^2. This explains how a relatively small energy input from a beam weapon can do so much work.
What specific "evidence" do you have that definitively proves that the steel from the top of the building did not survive.
1) We observe steel turning to dust in multiple videos.
2) We observe steel turning to dust in mulitiple photographs.
3) When it's over, there is not nearly enough steel to account for the towers. It ain't even close.
How was it "disintegrated?"
What happened to the mass of iron, carbon and other elements that make up steel?
What specific "evidence" do you have that definitively proves that the steel from the top of the building did not survive.
let's hear it, ace, I'm bored and need a good laugh.
How was it "disintegrated?"
I speculate that "they" have figured out how to dissociate steel by exciting the molecules, either at the molecular bonds, or in the nucleus. I speculate that it works by creating interference patterns between two beams, and in the region of the interference one or both of two things happens:
1) Specific molecules absorb energy at this particular wavelength, similar to how a water molecule selectively absorbs microwave radiation, thus breaking chemical bonds and/or splitting the nucleus.
2) Molecules are made to vibrate according to their natural resonant frequency, thus breaking chemical bonds and or splitting the nucleus.
What happened to the mass of iron, carbon and other elements that make up steel?
Some of it fell to the ground as we see in the pictures. Some of it was dissociated into very fine dust, on the order of 1 micron, as we see in the pictures. Some of it was converted into energy, according to E=mc^2. This explains how a relatively small energy input from a beam weapon can do so much work.
What specific "evidence" do you have that definitively proves that the steel from the top of the building did not survive.
1) We observe steel turning to dust in multiple videos.
2) We observe steel turning to dust in mulitiple photographs.
3) When it's over, there is not nearly enough steel to account for the towers. It ain't even close.
AceBaker
No, you see that, We see concrete dust and crushed gypsum.
No, you see that, We see concrete dust and crushed gypsum.
2) We observe steel turning to dust in mulitiple photographs.
Again, you see it (like not so quick saw a firetruck), we do not.
Not only a lie, but a stupid lie already debunked.
There is none so blind as he who WILL not see.
Not only a lie, but a stupid lie already debunked.
There is none so blind as he who WILL not see.
splitting the nucleus.
Believe me, if any nucleus splitting had occured we could all strap bacon to our shoes and skate across lower Manhatten.
Thanks, I haven't laughed so hard since RWH claimed to be an engineer. You've been reading too many comic books and watching too much Star Trek.
Splitting the nucleus my big ol' butt.
Grumpy
PS You do know that the amount of fissionable material converted to energy in the first atom bombs was measured in GRAMS don't you??? So how much of those tons of "missing" "Dustified" steel fissioned??? Why was it not radioactive???
How was it "disintegrated?"
I speculate that "they" have figured out how to dissociate steel by exciting the molecules, either at the molecular bonds, or in the nucleus. I speculate that it works by creating interference patterns between two beams, and in the region of the interference one or both of two things happens:
1) Specific molecules absorb energy at this particular wavelength, similar to how a water molecule selectively absorbs microwave radiation, thus breaking chemical bonds and/or splitting the nucleus.
2) Molecules are made to vibrate according to their natural resonant frequency, thus breaking chemical bonds and or splitting the nucleus.
What happened to the mass of iron, carbon and other elements that make up steel?
Some of it fell to the ground as we see in the pictures. Some of it was dissociated into very fine dust, on the order of 1 micron, as we see in the pictures. Some of it was converted into energy, according to E=mc^2. This explains how a relatively small energy input from a beam weapon can do so much work.
What specific "evidence" do you have that definitively proves that the steel from the top of the building did not survive.
1) We observe steel turning to dust in multiple videos.
2) We observe steel turning to dust in mulitiple photographs.
3) When it's over, there is not nearly enough steel to account for the towers. It ain't even close.
Ace,
If you are interested there's an article at journal of 911 studies ( http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters.html ) where Greg Jenkins writes about the energy required for the kind of thing you propose:
From those energy considerations alone, it would seem that this theory is implausible.
QUOTE
1) We observe steel turning to dust in multiple videos.
No, you see that, We see concrete dust and crushed gypsum.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) We observe steel turning to dust in multiple videos. |
No, you see that, We see concrete dust and crushed gypsum.
2) We observe steel turning to dust in mulitiple photographs.
Again, you see it (like not so quick saw a firetruck), we do not.
QUOTE
3) When it's over, there is not nearly enough steel to account for the towers. It ain't even close.
Not only a lie, but a stupid lie already debunked.
There is none so blind as he who WILL not see.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3) When it's over, there is not nearly enough steel to account for the towers. It ain't even close. |
Not only a lie, but a stupid lie already debunked.
There is none so blind as he who WILL not see.
splitting the nucleus.
Believe me, if any nucleus splitting had occured we could all strap bacon to our shoes and skate across lower Manhatten.
Thanks, I haven't laughed so hard since RWH claimed to be an engineer. You've been reading too many comic books and watching too much Star Trek.
Splitting the nucleus my big ol' butt.
Grumpy
PS You do know that the amount of fissionable material converted to energy in the first atom bombs was measured in GRAMS don't you??? So how much of those tons of "missing" "Dustified" steel fissioned??? Why was it not radioactive???
Friggin AMAZING.
Wonder why we still resort to old fashioned Anti-Tank missiles??
Arthur
QUOTE
I speculate that "they" have figured out how to dissociate steel by exciting the molecules, either at the molecular bonds, or in the nucleus. I speculate that it works by creating interference patterns between two beams, and in the region of the interference one or both of two things happens:
Wonder why we still resort to old fashioned Anti-Tank missiles??
Arthur
AceBaker:
You have got to be kidding!
Molecular bond energies are in the eV range; nuclear energies are in the MeV range.....
NF
You have got to be kidding!
Molecular bond energies are in the eV range; nuclear energies are in the MeV range.....
NF
Whooot!
Thank you Ace, I knew you wouldn't disappoint me.
Thank you Ace, I knew you wouldn't disappoint me.
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 23 2007, 05:17 AM)
How was it "disintegrated?"
I speculate that "they" have figured out how to dissociate steel by exciting the molecules, either at the molecular bonds, or in the nucleus. I speculate that it works by creating interference patterns between two beams, and in the region of the interference one or both of two things happens:
1) Specific molecules absorb energy at this particular wavelength, similar to how a water molecule selectively absorbs microwave radiation, thus breaking chemical bonds and/or splitting the nucleus.
2) Molecules are made to vibrate according to their natural resonant frequency, thus breaking chemical bonds and or splitting the nucleus.
What happened to the mass of iron, carbon and other elements that make up steel?
Some of it fell to the ground as we see in the pictures. Some of it was dissociated into very fine dust, on the order of 1 micron, as we see in the pictures. Some of it was converted into energy, according to E=mc^2. This explains how a relatively small energy input from a beam weapon can do so much work.
What specific "evidence" do you have that definitively proves that the steel from the top of the building did not survive.
1) We observe steel turning to dust in multiple videos.
2) We observe steel turning to dust in mulitiple photographs.
3) When it's over, there is not nearly enough steel to account for the towers. It ain't even close.
Ace,
If you are interested there's an article at journal of 911 studies ( http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters.html ) where Greg Jenkins writes about the energy required for the kind of thing you propose:
QUOTE
It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers. I will leave the details for later, but suffice it to say that the energy is approximately 4x1014 Joules. If you consider that this amount of energy was pumped into the towers during a time span of roughly 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 4x1013 Watts. This is four times the total power output of the entire earth, including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc.. This is with no loss. If you take into account losses from scattering and absorption in the atmosphere, reflection off aluminum and steel in the building, and inefficiencies from storing this huge amount of energy and generating photons, then the power required would swell to at least thousands of earths worth of power. The scenario becomes more bleak when considering beams of particles that have mass since the ionizion energies required to generate such beams would require additional massive amounts of energy in conjunction with the aforementioned inefficiencies.
Most of the energy required to vaporize steel is contained in the term relating to the latent heat of vaporization. This is the amount of energy required to vaporize steel once it is already at the boiling point. Since this is the dominating factor in the energy scale, this can be thought of as the energy required to break all the bonds which hold the steel together. Any magical method which hypothetically could be used to ‘dustify’ (a word evidently invented by Dr. Wood) the steel would necessarily involve breaking the bonds holding it together. In short, the energy required to ‘dustify’ steel, if such a thing were possible, would be about the same as the energy required to vaporize steel.
Most of the energy required to vaporize steel is contained in the term relating to the latent heat of vaporization. This is the amount of energy required to vaporize steel once it is already at the boiling point. Since this is the dominating factor in the energy scale, this can be thought of as the energy required to break all the bonds which hold the steel together. Any magical method which hypothetically could be used to ‘dustify’ (a word evidently invented by Dr. Wood) the steel would necessarily involve breaking the bonds holding it together. In short, the energy required to ‘dustify’ steel, if such a thing were possible, would be about the same as the energy required to vaporize steel.
From those energy considerations alone, it would seem that this theory is implausible.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 23 2007, 02:32 PM)
Ace,
If you are interested there's an article at journal of 911 studies ( http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters.html ) where Greg Jenkins writes about the energy required for the kind of thing you propose:
From those energy considerations alone, it would seem that this theory is implausible.
Jenkins' approach is deliberately disingenous, in my view. One could observe the damage from a nuclear bomb and make the same sorts of calculations, and "prove" that there is not enough energy present in the triggering device to account for the work. The answer, of course, is that matter is converted into energy according to E=mc^2. Prior to Einstein, people would have said that leveling a whole city with one small bomb was physically impossible.
The mass of the twin towers contained far more than enough nuclear energy to account for its own "dustification". I don't know if that is what happened. There are other schools of thought as well, including the notion that scientists have figured out how to access so called "free energy" from the aether. Einstein called his belief in the aether his greatest mistake. Perhaps he and the 19th century scientists were right about the aether after all.
So it is not necessary to input all of the energy from outside the system. What is required is a method to liberate energy already present, accurately, and almost invisibly. I say almost, because a distinct afterglow is observed on several videos. This is surely a clue as to what really happened. What is the official explanation for the afterglow?
If you are interested there's an article at journal of 911 studies ( http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters.html ) where Greg Jenkins writes about the energy required for the kind of thing you propose:
From those energy considerations alone, it would seem that this theory is implausible.
Jenkins' approach is deliberately disingenous, in my view. One could observe the damage from a nuclear bomb and make the same sorts of calculations, and "prove" that there is not enough energy present in the triggering device to account for the work. The answer, of course, is that matter is converted into energy according to E=mc^2. Prior to Einstein, people would have said that leveling a whole city with one small bomb was physically impossible.
The mass of the twin towers contained far more than enough nuclear energy to account for its own "dustification". I don't know if that is what happened. There are other schools of thought as well, including the notion that scientists have figured out how to access so called "free energy" from the aether. Einstein called his belief in the aether his greatest mistake. Perhaps he and the 19th century scientists were right about the aether after all.
So it is not necessary to input all of the energy from outside the system. What is required is a method to liberate energy already present, accurately, and almost invisibly. I say almost, because a distinct afterglow is observed on several videos. This is surely a clue as to what really happened. What is the official explanation for the afterglow?
And it keeps getting funnier and funnier.
ACE, the first rule of HOLES is when you are in one, STOP DIGGING.
Arthur
ACE, the first rule of HOLES is when you are in one, STOP DIGGING.
Arthur
So, Ace, your theory is that some scientists, somewhere, invented a device that would provide unlimited, cheap energy, with no environmental after effects. A process that would enshrine the inventor with the all time greats like Newton, and Einstein. A process that would make its owner richer than Bill Gates.
What did they use this for?
To “Dustify” the WTS towers?
Sheesh
Grow up.
What did they use this for?
To “Dustify” the WTS towers?
Sheesh
Grow up.
If you know nothing of physics it is easy to invent things like space ships and Death Rays. People have been doing it for centuries.
No one who has even the smallest sense of the possible, however, believes ANY of the big load of CRAP Ace just dumped on the forum. And his evidence??? An "afterglow"!!!
It's called sunlight, DA, look it up(or look up at it)!!!
It really is hard to believe that ANYONE could be that stupid!!!!
Grumpy
No one who has even the smallest sense of the possible, however, believes ANY of the big load of CRAP Ace just dumped on the forum. And his evidence??? An "afterglow"!!!
It's called sunlight, DA, look it up(or look up at it)!!!
It really is hard to believe that ANYONE could be that stupid!!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 23 2007, 02:54 PM)
Jenkins' approach is deliberately disingenous, in my view. One could observe the damage from a nuclear bomb and make the same sorts of calculations, and "prove" that there is not enough energy present in the triggering device to account for the work. The answer, of course, is that matter is converted into energy according to E=mc^2. Prior to Einstein, people would have said that leveling a whole city with one small bomb was physically impossible.
The mass of the twin towers contained far more than enough nuclear energy to account for its own "dustification". I don't know if that is what happened. There are other schools of thought as well, including the notion that scientists have figured out how to access so called "free energy" from the aether. Einstein called his belief in the aether his greatest mistake. Perhaps he and the 19th century scientists were right about the aether after all.
So it is not necessary to input all of the energy from outside the system. What is required is a method to liberate energy already present, accurately, and almost invisibly. I say almost, because a distinct afterglow is observed on several videos. This is surely a clue as to what really happened. What is the official explanation for the afterglow?
Ace,
Jenkins' approach is based on Judy Wood's "energy beam" hypothesis. Likewise, when you mentioned beams you didn't say anything about nuclear reactions.
If you want to talk about some kind of a nuclear device, perhaps you will find this paper interesting:
“Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers” (Steven Jones)
The mass of the twin towers contained far more than enough nuclear energy to account for its own "dustification". I don't know if that is what happened. There are other schools of thought as well, including the notion that scientists have figured out how to access so called "free energy" from the aether. Einstein called his belief in the aether his greatest mistake. Perhaps he and the 19th century scientists were right about the aether after all.
So it is not necessary to input all of the energy from outside the system. What is required is a method to liberate energy already present, accurately, and almost invisibly. I say almost, because a distinct afterglow is observed on several videos. This is surely a clue as to what really happened. What is the official explanation for the afterglow?
Ace,
Jenkins' approach is based on Judy Wood's "energy beam" hypothesis. Likewise, when you mentioned beams you didn't say anything about nuclear reactions.
If you want to talk about some kind of a nuclear device, perhaps you will find this paper interesting:
“Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers” (Steven Jones)
AceBaker:
I don't see too much wrong with Jenkins' approach, but I would do the calculation on a per kilogram basis, because even you have to agree that not ALL of the WTC steel was atomized or dustified.
The energy to vaporize iron is about 7 MJ per kg.
The energy to "dustify" iron depends on the particle size you want to reduce the iron to. Very roughly I estimate ~ 0.7 kJ per kg for 1 micron iron dust or 0.7 MJ per kg for 1 nanometer iron dust. (This is consistent with the vaporization energy of 7 MJ per kg because vaporization is equivalent to atomization and the atomic radius of iron is about 0.1 nm)
So, if you want to vaporize 1 tonne of WTC steel during a tower collapse it would require about 7000 MJ of input energy in 10 seconds or an input power of 700 Megawatts per tonne!. That's the electrical energy output of a typical nuclear power station for 10 seconds, JUST TO VAPORIZE ONE TONNE of structural steel!
As for "dustification" the numbers are, of course, a little better, but you still need a mechanism to fracture steel rather than bend it. I believe there WAS fracturing, but mostly of the bolts or welds at the column splices.
HOWEVER, take a look at Cherepanov's paper on fracture waves in the collapse of the twin towers. He considers columns fracturing along sliding planes inclined at 45 deg to a column axis under impact loading and predicts typical fragments would be in the size range 7 to 27 cm. This is a little better for your theory, but is still a long way from micron sized dust!
NF
I don't see too much wrong with Jenkins' approach, but I would do the calculation on a per kilogram basis, because even you have to agree that not ALL of the WTC steel was atomized or dustified.
The energy to vaporize iron is about 7 MJ per kg.
The energy to "dustify" iron depends on the particle size you want to reduce the iron to. Very roughly I estimate ~ 0.7 kJ per kg for 1 micron iron dust or 0.7 MJ per kg for 1 nanometer iron dust. (This is consistent with the vaporization energy of 7 MJ per kg because vaporization is equivalent to atomization and the atomic radius of iron is about 0.1 nm)
So, if you want to vaporize 1 tonne of WTC steel during a tower collapse it would require about 7000 MJ of input energy in 10 seconds or an input power of 700 Megawatts per tonne!. That's the electrical energy output of a typical nuclear power station for 10 seconds, JUST TO VAPORIZE ONE TONNE of structural steel!
As for "dustification" the numbers are, of course, a little better, but you still need a mechanism to fracture steel rather than bend it. I believe there WAS fracturing, but mostly of the bolts or welds at the column splices.
HOWEVER, take a look at Cherepanov's paper on fracture waves in the collapse of the twin towers. He considers columns fracturing along sliding planes inclined at 45 deg to a column axis under impact loading and predicts typical fragments would be in the size range 7 to 27 cm. This is a little better for your theory, but is still a long way from micron sized dust!
NF
Well, David,
ONE KOOKY THEORY DESERVES ANOTHER
don't you think?
NF
ONE KOOKY THEORY DESERVES ANOTHER
don't you think?
NF
Nobody believes my claim that it was GR with the G-ray in the Basement! 
Now guys, don't put words in my mouth. By invoking E=mc^2, I'm only trying to suggest that there exists the realistic possibility of sufficient energy to explain the observations. This is the scientitic way to proceed. You guys are denying the observations, this is the anti-scientific way to proceed. Let's try something that ought to be easy.
Here is my little gif again. Observe how the smoke above the tower begins expanding as the tower "collapses". Can we not agree, as scientists, that this is proof positive of an input of heat energy? How can a collapsing tower input heat energy into this cloud above? If anything, the falling material would create an area of low pressure which would tend to draw the cloud down toward it.
Here is my little gif again. Observe how the smoke above the tower begins expanding as the tower "collapses". Can we not agree, as scientists, that this is proof positive of an input of heat energy? How can a collapsing tower input heat energy into this cloud above? If anything, the falling material would create an area of low pressure which would tend to draw the cloud down toward it.
Nope,
About half the heat that was generated by the fires burning in the towers was ABSORBED by the towers, the rest was vented to the outside.
When the towers collapsed, the rapid destruction and the collapsing floors cased the venting to the outside to increase significantly, thus causing the rising plume to expand.
Any low pressure would have been relatively small and only close to descending pieces.
Arthur
About half the heat that was generated by the fires burning in the towers was ABSORBED by the towers, the rest was vented to the outside.
When the towers collapsed, the rapid destruction and the collapsing floors cased the venting to the outside to increase significantly, thus causing the rising plume to expand.
Any low pressure would have been relatively small and only close to descending pieces.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 23 2007, 10:22 AM)
And it keeps getting funnier and funnier.
ACE, the first rule of HOLES is when you are in one, STOP DIGGING.
Arthur
Apparently a conspiracy theorists first rule is keep digging till you get out. Heh!
ACE, the first rule of HOLES is when you are in one, STOP DIGGING.
Arthur
Apparently a conspiracy theorists first rule is keep digging till you get out. Heh!
At least newtonnj leaves when he gets imbarrassed by his absurdities. I'll give him that. Most conspiracy theorists seems to get energy from their imbarrassments.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 23 2007, 07:49 PM)
Nope,
About half the heat that was generated by the fires burning in the towers was ABSORBED by the towers, the rest was vented to the outside.
When the towers collapsed, the rapid destruction and the collapsing floors cased the venting to the outside to increase significantly, thus causing the rising plume to expand.
Any low pressure would have been relatively small and only close to descending pieces.
Arthur
NF, let's get you on record about the expanding smoke observed. What say you?
About half the heat that was generated by the fires burning in the towers was ABSORBED by the towers, the rest was vented to the outside.
When the towers collapsed, the rapid destruction and the collapsing floors cased the venting to the outside to increase significantly, thus causing the rising plume to expand.
Any low pressure would have been relatively small and only close to descending pieces.
Arthur
NF, let's get you on record about the expanding smoke observed. What say you?
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 23 2007, 07:45 PM)
Can we not agree, as scientists, that this is proof positive of an input of heat energy? How can a collapsing tower input heat energy into this cloud above? If anything, the falling material would create an area of low pressure which would tend to draw the cloud down toward it.
Ace, I think that you would agree that during the collapse of the towers that numerous collisions were taking place.
Any time work is performed involving frictional forces, heat will be will be a by-product.
When that heat is transfered to the surrounding air, the density of that air is lowered and it rises, carrying with it a lot of the micron size particles generated in the collapses.
There was no need for an external source of energy to explain any heat related behavior in the collapsing towers.
There was sufficient mechanical work being done to generate the necessary heat.
Ace, I think that you would agree that during the collapse of the towers that numerous collisions were taking place.
Any time work is performed involving frictional forces, heat will be will be a by-product.
When that heat is transfered to the surrounding air, the density of that air is lowered and it rises, carrying with it a lot of the micron size particles generated in the collapses.
There was no need for an external source of energy to explain any heat related behavior in the collapsing towers.
There was sufficient mechanical work being done to generate the necessary heat.
Not to mention the sizable fires on several floors. All shoved outside.
NEU-FONZE --- My wasn't specifically addressing your post, just reading the thread doing a catch-up.
NEU-FONZE --- My
wasn't specifically addressing your post, just reading the thread doing a catch-up.
AceBaker:
Why would you ask:
"NF, let's get you on record about the expanding smoke observed. What say you?"
Can Apollo hold back the CLOUDS OF UNKNOWING?
The answer my friend is NOT blowing in the wind............
NF
Why would you ask:
"NF, let's get you on record about the expanding smoke observed. What say you?"
Can Apollo hold back the CLOUDS OF UNKNOWING?
The answer my friend is NOT blowing in the wind............
NF
AceBaker:
I, like everybody else who posts on this forum, have looked at DOZENS of photos and videos of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
It was very violent and dramatic, but that is not surprising when you consider that even for the "energy-deficient" collapse of WTC 1, 2 gigajoules of stored potential energy was released in about a second by the vertical descent of ~ 58,000 tonnes of mostly concrete and steel through 3.7 meters.
That's a power OUTPUT of 2 gigawatts.
So a little heat was released as well!
What's your point?
NF
I, like everybody else who posts on this forum, have looked at DOZENS of photos and videos of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
It was very violent and dramatic, but that is not surprising when you consider that even for the "energy-deficient" collapse of WTC 1, 2 gigajoules of stored potential energy was released in about a second by the vertical descent of ~ 58,000 tonnes of mostly concrete and steel through 3.7 meters.
That's a power OUTPUT of 2 gigawatts.
So a little heat was released as well!
What's your point?
NF
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2007, 08:13 AM)
Figures Beavis and Butthead is on your mind. I'm sure you go to every convention.
Ad homs' aren't going to convince anyone but your Beavis and Butthead conspiracy friends. Why don't you try attacking the facts with facts. Oh yeah, You're a m@r@n, I forgot.
I could say you are the Beavis and Butthead of the Debunking Industry, however that really wouldn’t be fair to Beavis and Butthead (at least they realize people are laghing at them).
reasonwhy has a "raging clue" and it's pointing THAT way!
Don't understand what this means, must be from your favorite show. Do you dress like them when you go to the conventions?
This is a six plus story section of the exterior columns from the south tower. It is straight at the bottom so it must come from the mechanical floor 77. The six floors above have straight columns (no buckling or very little between the 80th and 81st floor).Same with the section below. This makes the 3.7 meter drop impossible. End of Fairytale!
Unclear what you are arguing. The drops didn't require buckling through bulk. Those straight perimeter sections show that they failed at the splices. Video of WTC1 just below the 96th level at the aircraft strike region where the initial drop occurred shows straight sections of perimeter trees standing for a few seconds after the top block had fallen past them.
In spite of that, it's not known for sure if it was 77-83 or a section below the floor of 75.
The mechanical floors were 75/76, IIRC. It also looks like 5 to 6 stories based on the distance between columns. If it came from just above the floor of 76, it would be 76-81. It was also the west side, opposite the side of the bowing.
Ad homs' aren't going to convince anyone but your Beavis and Butthead conspiracy friends. Why don't you try attacking the facts with facts. Oh yeah, You're a m@r@n, I forgot.
I could say you are the Beavis and Butthead of the Debunking Industry, however that really wouldn’t be fair to Beavis and Butthead (at least they realize people are laghing at them).
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2007, 08:13 AM)
reasonwhy has a "raging clue" and it's pointing THAT way!
Don't understand what this means, must be from your favorite show. Do you dress like them when you go to the conventions?
Proving NIST, Greening, DBB and shagster wrong with forensic evidence.
This is a six plus story section of the exterior columns from the south tower. It is straight at the bottom so it must come from the mechanical floor 77. The six floors above have straight columns (no buckling or very little between the 80th and 81st floor).Same with the section below. This makes the 3.7 meter drop impossible. End of Fairytale!
http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10746211-L.jpg
Can’t wait for the OCT'only some of the columns buckled', theory.
This is a six plus story section of the exterior columns from the south tower. It is straight at the bottom so it must come from the mechanical floor 77. The six floors above have straight columns (no buckling or very little between the 80th and 81st floor).Same with the section below. This makes the 3.7 meter drop impossible. End of Fairytale!
http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10746211-L.jpg
Can’t wait for the OCT'only some of the columns buckled', theory.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2007, 12:14 AM)
I could say you are the Beavis and Butthead of the Debunking Industry, however that really wouldn’t be fair to Beavis and Butthead (at least they realize people are laghing at them).
Don't understand what this means, must be from your favorite show. Do you dress like them when you go to the conventions?
You're about as original as a fart. I should sue you for copyright infringement. Next time you get the urge tell a joke try making one up. Better yet, save us the pain and skip it. The "I know you are but what am I?" joke is older than vacuum fluctuations and about as funny. Heh!
I don't know what's worse, your pathetic attemps at humor or your pathetic attemps at conspiracy theories.
Don't understand what this means, must be from your favorite show. Do you dress like them when you go to the conventions?
You're about as original as a fart. I should sue you for copyright infringement. Next time you get the urge tell a joke try making one up. Better yet, save us the pain and skip it. The "I know you are but what am I?" joke is older than vacuum fluctuations and about as funny. Heh!
I don't know what's worse, your pathetic attemps at humor or your pathetic attemps at conspiracy theories.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2007, 12:26 AM)
Can’t wait for the OCT ,'only some of the columns buckled' theory.
As opposed to the "All the columns should have buckled" conspiracy theory? How one dimentionsal.
I also can't wait to hear the "The explosives didn't buckle any columns outward" conspiracy theory.
Lets play these stupid games. for another 1000 pages...
As opposed to the "All the columns should have buckled" conspiracy theory? How one dimentionsal.
I also can't wait to hear the "The explosives didn't buckle any columns outward" conspiracy theory.
Lets play these stupid games. for another 1000 pages...
Use the bottom piece whose spandrels are almost vertical as a measuring device.
The middle of the spandrel to the middle of the next spandrel is ONE FLOOR.
You can use this to detemine floor distances.
You are counting floors too often in your red lined diagram.
I used to assume this type of thing was an honest mistake.
I know better now.
Arthur
The middle of the spandrel to the middle of the next spandrel is ONE FLOOR.
You can use this to detemine floor distances.
You are counting floors too often in your red lined diagram.
I used to assume this type of thing was an honest mistake.
I know better now.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 23 2007, 09:57 PM)
As opposed to the "All the columns should have buckled" conspiracy theory? How one dimentionsal.
As in all the columns have to fail for the upper block to fall as one unit.
Graphic so you can understand.
As in all the columns have to fail for the upper block to fall as one unit.
Graphic so you can understand.
Reasonwhy,
First learn to COUNT.
Second include the impact of the TILT of the top block on the columns.
Arthur
First learn to COUNT.
Second include the impact of the TILT of the top block on the columns.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 23 2007, 10:03 PM)
Use the bottom piece whose spandrels are almost vertical as a measuring device.
The middle of the spandrel to the middle of the next spandrel is ONE FLOOR.
You can use this to detemine floor distances.
You are counting floors too often in your red lined diagram.
I used to assume this type of thing was an honest mistake.
I know better now.
Arthur
Look at the close up View.
http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10746211-L.jpg
(Click on image)
The exterior did not have distinct lines in the middle of each story.
Arthurs, I used red numbers so everyone can decide if I know how to count.
The middle of the spandrel to the middle of the next spandrel is ONE FLOOR.
You can use this to detemine floor distances.
You are counting floors too often in your red lined diagram.
I used to assume this type of thing was an honest mistake.
I know better now.
Arthur
Look at the close up View.
http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10746211-L.jpg
(Click on image)
The exterior did not have distinct lines in the middle of each story.
Arthurs, I used red numbers so everyone can decide if I know how to count.
I used the blow up.
I also use the spandrel distance as a means of COMMON MEASUREMENT between the two pieces.
Your counting is off by ONE story.
OOPS.
Arthur
I also use the spandrel distance as a means of COMMON MEASUREMENT between the two pieces.
Your counting is off by ONE story.
OOPS.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2007, 05:26 AM)
Proving NIST, Greening, DBB and shagster wrong with forensic evidence.
This is a six plus story section of the exterior columns from the south tower. It is straight at the bottom so it must come from the mechanical floor 77. The six floors above have straight columns (no buckling or very little between the 80th and 81st floor).Same with the section below. This makes the 3.7 meter drop impossible. End of Fairytale!
http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10746211-L.jpg
Can’t wait for the OCT'only some of the columns buckled', theory.
In addition to the lack of buckling, please observe what is coming from every single piece of steel. We have copious quantities of blue-gray dust streaming out of them. And we have some sections which appear to be turning into a tan blob.
OK NF, you're going to say the white stuff is drywall and fireproofing. What's the brown blob?
This is a six plus story section of the exterior columns from the south tower. It is straight at the bottom so it must come from the mechanical floor 77. The six floors above have straight columns (no buckling or very little between the 80th and 81st floor).Same with the section below. This makes the 3.7 meter drop impossible. End of Fairytale!
http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10746211-L.jpg
Can’t wait for the OCT'only some of the columns buckled', theory.
In addition to the lack of buckling, please observe what is coming from every single piece of steel. We have copious quantities of blue-gray dust streaming out of them. And we have some sections which appear to be turning into a tan blob.
OK NF, you're going to say the white stuff is drywall and fireproofing. What's the brown blob?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2007, 05:26 AM)
This is a six plus story section of the exterior columns from the south tower. It is straight at the bottom so it must come from the mechanical floor 77. The six floors above have straight columns (no buckling or very little between the 80th and 81st floor).Same with the section below. This makes the 3.7 meter drop impossible. End of Fairytale!
Unclear what you are arguing. The drops didn't require buckling through bulk. Those straight perimeter sections show that they failed at the splices. Video of WTC1 just below the 96th level at the aircraft strike region where the initial drop occurred shows straight sections of perimeter trees standing for a few seconds after the top block had fallen past them.
In spite of that, it's not known for sure if it was 77-83 or a section below the floor of 75.
The mechanical floors were 75/76, IIRC. It also looks like 5 to 6 stories based on the distance between columns. If it came from just above the floor of 76, it would be 76-81. It was also the west side, opposite the side of the bowing.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2007, 05:26 AM)
Proving NIST, Greening, DBB and shagster wrong with forensic evidence.
This is a six plus story section of the exterior columns from the south tower. It is straight at the bottom so it must come from the mechanical floor 77. The six floors above have straight columns (no buckling or very little between the 80th and 81st floor).Same with the section below. This makes the 3.7 meter drop impossible. End of Fairytale!
http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10746211-L.jpg
Can’t wait for the OCT'only some of the columns buckled', theory.
A following frame of this same shot taken by Richard Drew, shows that the debris in this photo is raining down on WTC 3, which was located on the west side of WTC 2.
Even reasonwhy should know that this was the opposite side of collapse initiation for the south tower, so any comments about buckled columns, or the lack thereof, are pointless.
This is a six plus story section of the exterior columns from the south tower. It is straight at the bottom so it must come from the mechanical floor 77. The six floors above have straight columns (no buckling or very little between the 80th and 81st floor).Same with the section below. This makes the 3.7 meter drop impossible. End of Fairytale!
http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10746211-L.jpg
Can’t wait for the OCT'only some of the columns buckled', theory.
A following frame of this same shot taken by Richard Drew, shows that the debris in this photo is raining down on WTC 3, which was located on the west side of WTC 2.
Even reasonwhy should know that this was the opposite side of collapse initiation for the south tower, so any comments about buckled columns, or the lack thereof, are pointless.
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 24 2007, 07:33 AM)
In addition to the lack of buckling, please observe what is coming from every single piece of steel. We have copious quantities of blue-gray dust streaming out of them. And we have some sections which appear to be turning into a tan blob.
OK NF, you're going to say the white stuff is drywall and fireproofing. What's the brown blob?
I believe it may be butterscotch pudding.
OK NF, you're going to say the white stuff is drywall and fireproofing. What's the brown blob?
I believe it may be butterscotch pudding.
The two main types of SFRM's (Sprayed Fire-Resistive Material) used in WTC 1 & 2:
TAN COLORED gypsum/vermiculite aggregate
GRAYISH-WHITE mineral fiber with a cementitious binder
NF
TAN COLORED gypsum/vermiculite aggregate
GRAYISH-WHITE mineral fiber with a cementitious binder
NF
reasonwhy --- The mechanical floors were 75 and 76. Oops!
More generally, it is only the core columns which need to fail by, say, buckling. The exterior columns came apart at the connections as the top block tilted after the exterior walls broke in half at the disconnect between the top and bottom blocks.
More generally, it is only the core columns which need to fail by, say, buckling. The exterior columns came apart at the connections as the top block tilted after the exterior walls broke in half at the disconnect between the top and bottom blocks.
Three interesting observations derived from electron microprobe analyses of WTC dust are:
1. Some particles showed evidence for a very thin coating of lead in the form of lead oxide or lead sulfate.
2. Some alumino-silicate particles showed evidence of having been molten. MSDS sheets for Blaze-Shield list its melting point as ~ 1000 deg C; vermiculite melts at 1350 deg C.
3. Spherical iron-rich particles (~ 3 microns in diameter) were observed to have formed by surface tension effects; these metallic particles are evidence for the melting of iron (or steel).
Reference: RJ Lee Group Report on 130 Liberty Street Damage Assessment
December 2003
NF
1. Some particles showed evidence for a very thin coating of lead in the form of lead oxide or lead sulfate.
2. Some alumino-silicate particles showed evidence of having been molten. MSDS sheets for Blaze-Shield list its melting point as ~ 1000 deg C; vermiculite melts at 1350 deg C.
3. Spherical iron-rich particles (~ 3 microns in diameter) were observed to have formed by surface tension effects; these metallic particles are evidence for the melting of iron (or steel).
Reference: RJ Lee Group Report on 130 Liberty Street Damage Assessment
December 2003
NF
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 23 2007, 04:08 PM)
Ace,
Jenkins' approach is based on Judy Wood's "energy beam" hypothesis. Likewise, when you mentioned beams you didn't say anything about nuclear reactions.
If you want to talk about some kind of a nuclear device, perhaps you will find this paper interesting:
“Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers” (Steven Jones)
The Jones paper does not fully analyse the dust issue.
My research into the published dust studies has been posted in the previous thread. There is an abundance of evidence of fine dust beyond 400m in large volume (videos from multiple angles, still photos, several published studies on dust composition and spread). Large chunks across the street as found by Jones are still consistent with the published dust studies.
I don't know enough about mini-nukes to say whether Jones opinion on that is robust or not....
The pulverizaton evidence (building/contents/bodies) is robust.
Jenkins' approach is based on Judy Wood's "energy beam" hypothesis. Likewise, when you mentioned beams you didn't say anything about nuclear reactions.
If you want to talk about some kind of a nuclear device, perhaps you will find this paper interesting:
“Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers” (Steven Jones)
The Jones paper does not fully analyse the dust issue.
My research into the published dust studies has been posted in the previous thread. There is an abundance of evidence of fine dust beyond 400m in large volume (videos from multiple angles, still photos, several published studies on dust composition and spread). Large chunks across the street as found by Jones are still consistent with the published dust studies.
I don't know enough about mini-nukes to say whether Jones opinion on that is robust or not....
The pulverizaton evidence (building/contents/bodies) is robust.
blue74
What "dust issue"??? There was some dust, it spread out around the site according to it's size(smaller=further), but it was a minor part of the contents of the building, 1.6 MILLION TONS of which was removed from the basements of the two towers.
Your dental hygenist knows nothing about materials science nor the energies required to "dustify" large amounts of those materials. She (and Ace Baker) are on the far end of the lunatic fringe(in fact most of the fringe think they're a little nuts).
Grumpy
QUOTE
The Jones paper does not fully analyse the dust issue.
My research into the published dust studies has been posted in the previous thread. There is an abundance of evidence of fine dust beyond 400m in large volume (videos from multiple angles, still photos, several published studies on dust composition and spread). Large chunks across the street as found by Jones are still consistent with the published dust studies.
My research into the published dust studies has been posted in the previous thread. There is an abundance of evidence of fine dust beyond 400m in large volume (videos from multiple angles, still photos, several published studies on dust composition and spread). Large chunks across the street as found by Jones are still consistent with the published dust studies.
What "dust issue"??? There was some dust, it spread out around the site according to it's size(smaller=further), but it was a minor part of the contents of the building, 1.6 MILLION TONS of which was removed from the basements of the two towers.
Your dental hygenist knows nothing about materials science nor the energies required to "dustify" large amounts of those materials. She (and Ace Baker) are on the far end of the lunatic fringe(in fact most of the fringe think they're a little nuts).
Grumpy
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 23 2007, 04:08 PM)
Ace,
Jenkins' approach is based on Judy Wood's "energy beam" hypothesis. Likewise, when you mentioned beams you didn't say anything about nuclear reactions.
If you want to talk about some kind of a nuclear device, perhaps you will find this paper interesting:
“Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers” (Steven Jones)
No, Jenkins deliberately confuses the beam weapon issue. He correctly calculates the energy requirements to do a particular amount of work, but then completely ignores the energy available from within the system.
The enitre point of "exotic" energy sources is that they are exotic. I speculated about ways in which energy beams of relatively low energy could in theory liberate energy from the surroundings thus satisfying the energy requirements without requiring an impossible energy input.
Is zero-point energy science fact or fiction? We don't know.
How advanced are Masers? We don't know.
What about HAARP?
What about Scalar energy? Fact or fiction?
Is there really a sea of energy surrounding everything, waiting to be tapped? We don't know.
Dr. Wood has provided some nice links to declassified research on energy weapons. How much further advanced is the classified stuff?
Jenkins' approach is based on Judy Wood's "energy beam" hypothesis. Likewise, when you mentioned beams you didn't say anything about nuclear reactions.
If you want to talk about some kind of a nuclear device, perhaps you will find this paper interesting:
“Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers” (Steven Jones)
No, Jenkins deliberately confuses the beam weapon issue. He correctly calculates the energy requirements to do a particular amount of work, but then completely ignores the energy available from within the system.
The enitre point of "exotic" energy sources is that they are exotic. I speculated about ways in which energy beams of relatively low energy could in theory liberate energy from the surroundings thus satisfying the energy requirements without requiring an impossible energy input.
Is zero-point energy science fact or fiction? We don't know.
How advanced are Masers? We don't know.
What about HAARP?
What about Scalar energy? Fact or fiction?
Is there really a sea of energy surrounding everything, waiting to be tapped? We don't know.
Dr. Wood has provided some nice links to declassified research on energy weapons. How much further advanced is the classified stuff?
You can SPECULATE about ANYTHING.
You have EVIDENCE of NOTHING.
What a WASTE of time.
Arthur
You have EVIDENCE of NOTHING.
What a WASTE of time.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 24 2007, 09:16 AM)
reasonwhy --- The mechanical floors were 75 and 76. Oops!
If you look closely you will see it starts half way between 76 and 77. The joints were in the middle of the story. The aluminum cladding is off the lower section.
More generally, it is only the core columns which need to fail by, say, buckling. The exterior columns came apart at the connections as the top block tilted after the exterior walls broke in half at the disconnect between the top and bottom
The pseudo scientist don't have the columns buckling but ripping apart. The joints were staggered every 3rd floor. So, how much energy does it take to rip a column apart?
Do you have a graphic of how this works?
Unless the tilting breaks 2/3's of the columns (1/3 would be connected by bolts between each floor), they have to buckle when the building starts to collapse.
Or break all the floor brackets on the different floors in the perimeter section at one time.
Are you taking BS lessons from Grumpster? Only the hard core OCT would believe this.
That is were a large EXPLOSIVE would BREAK the JOINTS on MULTIPLE floors with lateral force.
The pseudo scientist with their mythical gravity driven lateral loads have not shown how this works.
If your physics is superior why haven't you and your conspiracy theorists been able to pass even ONE peer-reviewed paper? Not even TRIED!
It seems the BS being spewed here is coming from conspiracy theorists.
If you look closely you will see it starts half way between 76 and 77. The joints were in the middle of the story. The aluminum cladding is off the lower section.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 24 2007, 09:16 AM)
More generally, it is only the core columns which need to fail by, say, buckling. The exterior columns came apart at the connections as the top block tilted after the exterior walls broke in half at the disconnect between the top and bottom
The pseudo scientist don't have the columns buckling but ripping apart. The joints were staggered every 3rd floor. So, how much energy does it take to rip a column apart?
Do you have a graphic of how this works?
Unless the tilting breaks 2/3's of the columns (1/3 would be connected by bolts between each floor), they have to buckle when the building starts to collapse.
Or break all the floor brackets on the different floors in the perimeter section at one time.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 25 2007, 01:01 AM)
So, how much energy does it take to rip a column apart?
That's the point.
Columns WEREN'T ripped apart.
The BOLTED connections were. (See NIST photos, FEMA photos, and ANY close up photos of the debris pile)
Like that LONG SPAN in the photo, where clearly ALL THE BOLTS in a row failed.
A failure mode that no EXPLOSIVE would cause.
Arthur
That's the point.
Columns WEREN'T ripped apart.
The BOLTED connections were. (See NIST photos, FEMA photos, and ANY close up photos of the debris pile)
Like that LONG SPAN in the photo, where clearly ALL THE BOLTS in a row failed.
A failure mode that no EXPLOSIVE would cause.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 24 2007, 10:59 PM)
A failure mode that no EXPLOSIVE would cause.
Arthur
Are you taking BS lessons from Grumpster? Only the hard core OCT would believe this.
That is were a large EXPLOSIVE would BREAK the JOINTS on MULTIPLE floors with lateral force.
The pseudo scientist with their mythical gravity driven lateral loads have not shown how this works.
Arthur
Are you taking BS lessons from Grumpster? Only the hard core OCT would believe this.
That is were a large EXPLOSIVE would BREAK the JOINTS on MULTIPLE floors with lateral force.
The pseudo scientist with their mythical gravity driven lateral loads have not shown how this works.
reasonwhy
Only an idiot would deny what there is ample photographic evidence for. The columns did not buckle, but broke at the bolted flanges(the bolts pulled out, stripped their threads or failed in tension). This is simply the facts, not open for reinterpretation by paranoid crackpot CTers.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Are you taking BS lessons from Grumpster? Only the hard core OCT would believe this.
Only an idiot would deny what there is ample photographic evidence for. The columns did not buckle, but broke at the bolted flanges(the bolts pulled out, stripped their threads or failed in tension). This is simply the facts, not open for reinterpretation by paranoid crackpot CTers.
Grumpy
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 25 2007, 02:05 AM)
That is were a large EXPLOSIVE would BREAK the JOINTS on MULTIPLE floors with lateral force.
Nope, the Supersonic blast wave would cause metal to BEND at the point closest to the blast. You aren't going to come up with a blast pattern that would generate that nice straight line and those long straight columns.
Try as you like you have YET to come up with ANY evidence of explosives used in the towers.
But keep trying, your posts are always good for a light intellectual diversion.
Arthur
Nope, the Supersonic blast wave would cause metal to BEND at the point closest to the blast. You aren't going to come up with a blast pattern that would generate that nice straight line and those long straight columns.
Try as you like you have YET to come up with ANY evidence of explosives used in the towers.
But keep trying, your posts are always good for a light intellectual diversion.
Arthur
This FEMA pdf on WTC 3 has a good resolution photo of reasonwhy's slam dunk evidence of CD.
The photo is on page 5, and the resolution in zoom is good.
The column section appears to be from a mechanical floor, but whether it's from above or below the floor is beyond me.
Page 6 shows what the column section and its companions did to WTC 3.
Here is a video of the collapse of the south tower taken from the north.
With east and west sides visible, it gives a good view of the 20 degrees of tilt to the east during the collapse.
The down side of the video is that it's accompanied by a conversation between a man trapped on the 105th floor and a 911 operator, it's sad to hear he doesn't make it out.
The photo is on page 5, and the resolution in zoom is good.
The column section appears to be from a mechanical floor, but whether it's from above or below the floor is beyond me.
Page 6 shows what the column section and its companions did to WTC 3.
Here is a video of the collapse of the south tower taken from the north.
With east and west sides visible, it gives a good view of the 20 degrees of tilt to the east during the collapse.
The down side of the video is that it's accompanied by a conversation between a man trapped on the 105th floor and a 911 operator, it's sad to hear he doesn't make it out.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 25 2007, 07:05 AM)
Are you taking BS lessons from Grumpster? Only the hard core OCT would believe this.
That is were a large EXPLOSIVE would BREAK the JOINTS on MULTIPLE floors with lateral force.
The pseudo scientist with their mythical gravity driven lateral loads have not shown how this works.
If your physics is superior why haven't you and your conspiracy theorists been able to pass even ONE peer-reviewed paper? Not even TRIED!
It seems the BS being spewed here is coming from conspiracy theorists.
Something is wrong with that figure of 600,000 lbs for the three trees in the WFC building.
From Blue's core data, the mass of all the core columns for the 83rd story was 200,000 lbs (3m^2 column area).
3.78m * 3m^2 * 7850kg/m^3 = 8.9E4 kg = 200,000 lbs
Three perimeter trees from the upper levels can't be 600,000 lbs. That's 3 times the entire core mass of the 83rd story.
In the aircraft impact region, the plates of the perimeter trees were about 0.25 inch and the spandrels were about 3/8 inch. That works out to about 3.45 tons per tree or 6900 lbs. Three trees would be about 21,000 lbs, not 600,000 lb. They would have been ejected from the upper half of the tower to reach Winter Garden or WFC, so the columns were relatively thin-walled.
Each story had 80 trees and the mass of the trees per story was 80/3. In the aircraft impact region the mass of the trees per story would be approximately:
6900*80/3 = 184,000 lbs = 8.4E4 kg
That's about the same mass per story as the core columns. The perimeter carried about the same load as the core, so the cross-sectional area, volume, and mass of the perimeter trees per story are expected to be similar to that of the core columns.
NIST probably has exact dimensions of the perimeter trees. The figures I posted are approximate.
From Blue's core data, the mass of all the core columns for the 83rd story was 200,000 lbs (3m^2 column area).
3.78m * 3m^2 * 7850kg/m^3 = 8.9E4 kg = 200,000 lbs
Three perimeter trees from the upper levels can't be 600,000 lbs. That's 3 times the entire core mass of the 83rd story.
In the aircraft impact region, the plates of the perimeter trees were about 0.25 inch and the spandrels were about 3/8 inch. That works out to about 3.45 tons per tree or 6900 lbs. Three trees would be about 21,000 lbs, not 600,000 lb. They would have been ejected from the upper half of the tower to reach Winter Garden or WFC, so the columns were relatively thin-walled.
Each story had 80 trees and the mass of the trees per story was 80/3. In the aircraft impact region the mass of the trees per story would be approximately:
6900*80/3 = 184,000 lbs = 8.4E4 kg
That's about the same mass per story as the core columns. The perimeter carried about the same load as the core, so the cross-sectional area, volume, and mass of the perimeter trees per story are expected to be similar to that of the core columns.
NIST probably has exact dimensions of the perimeter trees. The figures I posted are approximate.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2007, 07:13 AM)
Nope, the Supersonic blast wave would cause metal to BEND at the point closest to the blast. You aren't going to come up with a blast pattern that would generate that nice straight line and those long straight columns.
Try as you like you have YET to come up with ANY evidence of explosives used in the towers.
But keep trying, your posts are always good for a light intellectual diversion.
Arthur
Why don’t you run that fallacy past Demolition Dave or even the “beavis and butthead of the deomoition industry” Brent Blanchard!
They use explosives to cut and then move columns (smaller charge).
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm
Try as you like you have YET to come up with ANY evidence of explosives used in the towers.
But keep trying, your posts are always good for a light intellectual diversion.
Arthur
Why don’t you run that fallacy past Demolition Dave or even the “beavis and butthead of the deomoition industry” Brent Blanchard!
They use explosives to cut and then move columns (smaller charge).
QUOTE
Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm
The mass of the concrete in the net floor area (not including core) was:
1750 kg/m3 * 0.1 m * 3600 m^2 = 6.3E5 kg
The mass of the core columns at the 83rd story was 8.9E4 kg. If the perimeter trees were of similar mass, then the total column mass was about 1.8E5 kg.
The ratio of column mass to concrete in the net floor area was:
1.8E5 / 6.3E5 = 0.26
NIST used a density of 2100 kg/m3 for the concrete. Using that figure gives a ratio of 0.22.
Using a mass of 1.7E6 kg for an ordinary office story in the aircraft impact region, the ratio of column mass to story mass is:
1.8E5 / 1.7E6 = 0.11
The columns in the upper stories were a small fraction of the mass of a story.
1750 kg/m3 * 0.1 m * 3600 m^2 = 6.3E5 kg
The mass of the core columns at the 83rd story was 8.9E4 kg. If the perimeter trees were of similar mass, then the total column mass was about 1.8E5 kg.
The ratio of column mass to concrete in the net floor area was:
1.8E5 / 6.3E5 = 0.26
NIST used a density of 2100 kg/m3 for the concrete. Using that figure gives a ratio of 0.22.
Using a mass of 1.7E6 kg for an ordinary office story in the aircraft impact region, the ratio of column mass to story mass is:
1.8E5 / 1.7E6 = 0.11
The columns in the upper stories were a small fraction of the mass of a story.
QUOTE (FactCheck+Feb 25 2007, 08:14 AM)
If your physics is superior why haven't you and your conspiracy theorists been able to pass even ONE peer-reviewed paper? Not even TRIED!
It seems the BS being spewed here is coming from conspiracy theorists.
So, what's your Conspiracy Theory?
That OBL conspired with 19 Muslim extremist and there handlers for years from a cave in Afghanistan?
It seems the BS being spewed here is coming from conspiracy theorists.
So, what's your Conspiracy Theory?
That OBL conspired with 19 Muslim extremist and there handlers for years from a cave in Afghanistan?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 25 2007, 12:42 PM)
They use explosives to cut and then move columns (smaller charge).
That's true you can, but NOBODY has shown ONE picture of ONE WTC column that was explosively cut.
So with NO EVIDENCE that any CUTTER charges were used (and the EXTREME difficulty of placing them where they wouldn't be NOTICED) it is SILLY to ASSUME that they were there.
What the FACTS show is that the VAST majority of the perimeter columns we have seen are relatively pristine with only some enlargment of the bolt holes.
Arthur
That's true you can, but NOBODY has shown ONE picture of ONE WTC column that was explosively cut.
So with NO EVIDENCE that any CUTTER charges were used (and the EXTREME difficulty of placing them where they wouldn't be NOTICED) it is SILLY to ASSUME that they were there.
What the FACTS show is that the VAST majority of the perimeter columns we have seen are relatively pristine with only some enlargment of the bolt holes.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 25 2007, 01:13 PM)
So, what is your Conspiracy Theory?
That OBL conspired with 19 Muslim extremist and there handlers for years from a cave in Afghanistan?
Can't you even get THIS part of the story straight?
Prior to 9/11 OBL wasn't living in caves.
He had the approval of the Taliban Govt and helped provide support to them.
They ran OPEN training camps.
They started the 9/11 mission years before and put Atta in charge.
A college graduate with an engineering degree.
Neither he nor his key followers were stupid or ever lived in a cave.
They came to the US, lived here and the pilots to be proceeded to learn to fly, got advanced licences and even took flight simulator training on Boeing simulators. They took trial runs on the flights they were going to take and the rest of the team trained in martial arts.
The whole "planned from a cave" is just BS.
Arthur
That OBL conspired with 19 Muslim extremist and there handlers for years from a cave in Afghanistan?
Can't you even get THIS part of the story straight?
Prior to 9/11 OBL wasn't living in caves.
He had the approval of the Taliban Govt and helped provide support to them.
They ran OPEN training camps.
They started the 9/11 mission years before and put Atta in charge.
A college graduate with an engineering degree.
Neither he nor his key followers were stupid or ever lived in a cave.
They came to the US, lived here and the pilots to be proceeded to learn to fly, got advanced licences and even took flight simulator training on Boeing simulators. They took trial runs on the flights they were going to take and the rest of the team trained in martial arts.
The whole "planned from a cave" is just BS.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2007, 10:26 AM)
Can't you even get THIS part of the story straight?
Prior to 9/11 OBL wasn't living in caves.
He had the approval of the Taliban Govt and helped provide support to them.
They ran OPEN training camps.
They started the 9/11 mission years before and put Atta in charge.
A college graduate with an engineering degree.
Neither he nor his key followers were stupid or ever lived in a cave.
They came to the US, lived here and the pilots to be proceeded to learn to fly, got advanced licences and even took flight simulator training on Boeing simulators. They took trial runs on the flights they were going to take and the rest of the team trained in martial arts.
The whole "planned from a cave" is just BS.
Arthur
Don’t get me started!
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm
Osama bin Laden is, quite literally, a weapon of mass convenience.
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm
Osama bin Laden is, quite literally, a weapon of mass convenience.
"Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that."
2. Some alumino-silicate particles showed evidence of having been molten. MSDS sheets for Blaze-Shield list its melting point as ~ 1000 deg C; vermiculite melts at 1350 deg C.
Don't limit yourself to the spray on.
Aluminosilcates were present in ceramic wall tiles as well and many tipes of floor tiles.
The whole "planned from a cave" is just BS.
and unbelievably RACIST!
Prior to 9/11 OBL wasn't living in caves.
He had the approval of the Taliban Govt and helped provide support to them.
They ran OPEN training camps.
They started the 9/11 mission years before and put Atta in charge.
A college graduate with an engineering degree.
Neither he nor his key followers were stupid or ever lived in a cave.
They came to the US, lived here and the pilots to be proceeded to learn to fly, got advanced licences and even took flight simulator training on Boeing simulators. They took trial runs on the flights they were going to take and the rest of the team trained in martial arts.
The whole "planned from a cave" is just BS.
Arthur
Don’t get me started!
QUOTE
The Lair of Bin Laden is a fictoid that originated in the highly-enterprising British press on November 27th, 2001. The chronology is as follows. On November 26th, the New York Times carried a story based on the account of an a ex-Russian soldier, Viktor Kutsenko, who had served in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties in which he claimed that there had seen an elaborate cave complex in Zhawar with "iron doors" that contained " a bakery, a hotel with overstuffed furniture, a hospital with an ultrasound machine, a library, a mosque, weapons of every imaginable stripe; a service bay with a World War II-era Soviet tank inside, in perfect running order." The historic story then added "Mr. bin Laden is reported to have upgraded both it and a nearby camp in the 1990's."
On November 27th, the London-based Independent came up with its own fairly similar troglodyte story, except that it had moved the underground fortress from Zhawar to Tora Bora, where the manhunt for bin Laden was about to begin, and advanced it in time from the nineteen-eighties to the present.
The Independent headlined: "Al-Qa'ida almost 'immune to attack' inside its hi-tech underground lair." In the story, its correspondent Richard Lloyd Parry, in Jalalabad, described a vast redoubt burrowed deep under a mountain, with labyrinthian tunnels sealed by with iron doors. "It has its own ventilation system and its own power, created by a hydro-electric generator. Its walls and floors in the rooms are smooth and finished and it extends 350 yards beneath a solid mountain." It was therefore tunneled almost as deep as the World Trade Center was high. It was also " so well defended and concealed that – short of poison gas or a tactical nuclear weapon – it is immune to outside attack. And it is filled with heavily armed followers of Osama bin Laden, with a suicidal commitment to their cause and with nothing left to lose."
On November 27th, the London-based Independent came up with its own fairly similar troglodyte story, except that it had moved the underground fortress from Zhawar to Tora Bora, where the manhunt for bin Laden was about to begin, and advanced it in time from the nineteen-eighties to the present.
The Independent headlined: "Al-Qa'ida almost 'immune to attack' inside its hi-tech underground lair." In the story, its correspondent Richard Lloyd Parry, in Jalalabad, described a vast redoubt burrowed deep under a mountain, with labyrinthian tunnels sealed by with iron doors. "It has its own ventilation system and its own power, created by a hydro-electric generator. Its walls and floors in the rooms are smooth and finished and it extends 350 yards beneath a solid mountain." It was therefore tunneled almost as deep as the World Trade Center was high. It was also " so well defended and concealed that – short of poison gas or a tactical nuclear weapon – it is immune to outside attack. And it is filled with heavily armed followers of Osama bin Laden, with a suicidal commitment to their cause and with nothing left to lose."
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm
Osama bin Laden is, quite literally, a weapon of mass convenience.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Lair of Bin Laden is a fictoid that originated in the highly-enterprising British press on November 27th, 2001. The chronology is as follows. On November 26th, the New York Times carried a story based on the account of an a ex-Russian soldier, Viktor Kutsenko, who had served in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties in which he claimed that there had seen an elaborate cave complex in Zhawar with "iron doors" that contained " a bakery, a hotel with overstuffed furniture, a hospital with an ultrasound machine, a library, a mosque, weapons of every imaginable stripe; a service bay with a World War II-era Soviet tank inside, in perfect running order." The historic story then added "Mr. bin Laden is reported to have upgraded both it and a nearby camp in the 1990's." On November 27th, the London-based Independent came up with its own fairly similar troglodyte story, except that it had moved the underground fortress from Zhawar to Tora Bora, where the manhunt for bin Laden was about to begin, and advanced it in time from the nineteen-eighties to the present. The Independent headlined: "Al-Qa'ida almost 'immune to attack' inside its hi-tech underground lair." In the story, its correspondent Richard Lloyd Parry, in Jalalabad, described a vast redoubt burrowed deep under a mountain, with labyrinthian tunnels sealed by with iron doors. "It has its own ventilation system and its own power, created by a hydro-electric generator. Its walls and floors in the rooms are smooth and finished and it extends 350 yards beneath a solid mountain." It was therefore tunneled almost as deep as the World Trade Center was high. It was also " so well defended and concealed that – short of poison gas or a tactical nuclear weapon – it is immune to outside attack. And it is filled with heavily armed followers of Osama bin Laden, with a suicidal commitment to their cause and with nothing left to lose." |
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm
Osama bin Laden is, quite literally, a weapon of mass convenience.
"Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that."
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 25 2007, 02:54 PM)
Don’t get me started!
You haven't started?
You've been posting over a year and yet in ALL THIS TIME you haven't YET posted ANYTHING remotely challenging the NIST report.
What's your hold up?
Arthur
You haven't started?
You've been posting over a year and yet in ALL THIS TIME you haven't YET posted ANYTHING remotely challenging the NIST report.
What's your hold up?
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 24 2007, 07:25 PM)
2. Some alumino-silicate particles showed evidence of having been molten. MSDS sheets for Blaze-Shield list its melting point as ~ 1000 deg C; vermiculite melts at 1350 deg C.
Don't limit yourself to the spray on.
Aluminosilcates were present in ceramic wall tiles as well and many tipes of floor tiles.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2007, 12:26 PM)
The whole "planned from a cave" is just BS.
and unbelievably RACIST!
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 25 2007, 02:36 AM)
No, Jenkins deliberately confuses the beam weapon issue. He correctly calculates the energy requirements to do a particular amount of work, but then completely ignores the energy available from within the system.
The enitre point of "exotic" energy sources is that they are exotic. I speculated about ways in which energy beams of relatively low energy could in theory liberate energy from the surroundings thus satisfying the energy requirements without requiring an impossible energy input.
Is zero-point energy science fact or fiction? We don't know.
How advanced are Masers? We don't know.
What about HAARP?
What about Scalar energy? Fact or fiction?
Is there really a sea of energy surrounding everything, waiting to be tapped? We don't know.
Dr. Wood has provided some nice links to declassified research on energy weapons. How much further advanced is the classified stuff?
Yes we do know, energy is what makes the universe possible in the first place it is just that energy has to be transferred. Space time is the effect energy has on space, not the effect that space has on energy.
The whole E=MC thing points this out if you have to have energy to accomplish work, then it has to be transfered and changed, from one form to another.
The universe is a sea of energy, in particles and waves what causes the basic existence the simplest understanding is what is debatable.
The universe is merely simplicity leading to complexity.
Your trying to take complexity and make it simplicity!
It is easy to take something simplistic and make it complex it is quite another thing to take something complex and make it simplistic.
The enitre point of "exotic" energy sources is that they are exotic. I speculated about ways in which energy beams of relatively low energy could in theory liberate energy from the surroundings thus satisfying the energy requirements without requiring an impossible energy input.
Is zero-point energy science fact or fiction? We don't know.
How advanced are Masers? We don't know.
What about HAARP?
What about Scalar energy? Fact or fiction?
Is there really a sea of energy surrounding everything, waiting to be tapped? We don't know.
Dr. Wood has provided some nice links to declassified research on energy weapons. How much further advanced is the classified stuff?
Yes we do know, energy is what makes the universe possible in the first place it is just that energy has to be transferred. Space time is the effect energy has on space, not the effect that space has on energy.
The whole E=MC thing points this out if you have to have energy to accomplish work, then it has to be transfered and changed, from one form to another.
The universe is a sea of energy, in particles and waves what causes the basic existence the simplest understanding is what is debatable.
The universe is merely simplicity leading to complexity.
Your trying to take complexity and make it simplicity!
It is easy to take something simplistic and make it complex it is quite another thing to take something complex and make it simplistic.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 25 2007, 09:54 PM)
Don't limit yourself to the spray on.
Aluminosilcates were present in ceramic wall tiles as well and many tipes of floor tiles.
The aluminum silicates are molten when the tiles are fired, at about 1500c-2000c.
It forms a white glaze on the tile.
Aluminosilcates were present in ceramic wall tiles as well and many tipes of floor tiles.
The aluminum silicates are molten when the tiles are fired, at about 1500c-2000c.
It forms a white glaze on the tile.
NBC Affiliate :
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/artic...2232007-CR.html
QUOTE
What if everything we thought we knew about 9-11 was wrong?
12 News
Feb. 23, 2007 09:38 PM
People still questioning 9-11 theories
Hundreds of people from across the country descend on a Chandler resort to challenge popular beliefs about 9-11.
What many people consider to be the most devastating attack ever on Americans is also the government's greatest lie, according to many attending the 9/11 Accountability Conference.
One person told us she feels like they get nothing but lies and propaganda from the government when it comes to seeking answers about the attack.
The 9/11 Truth Movement began on the internet.
Followers cite alternative research that suggests the hijackers on the planes had help, and it wasn't from Osama Bin Laden. They question everything about the attacks.
Truth Movement supporters say they doubt much of what the government tells them about U.S. intelligence, the twin towers collapse and the investigations. Some people we talked to say the government has such highly sophisticated technology, that it would be impossible for the planes to go off course without anyone knowing.
Others say, the twin towers could not have collapsed the way they did without some kind of controlled demolition.
And many fear the government is using the war on terror to further an agenda to take away American's freedoms.
The 9-11 Truth followers are calling for a new independent investigation. They believe- high ranking U.S. government officials are covering up the truth, and may have in some way orchestrated the attacks.
As to why so many people chose to believe the government? Some say, it’s easier to go along with the majority than follow unpopular beliefs.
The conference runs through Sunday at the San Marcos Resort.
12 News
Feb. 23, 2007 09:38 PM
People still questioning 9-11 theories
Hundreds of people from across the country descend on a Chandler resort to challenge popular beliefs about 9-11.
What many people consider to be the most devastating attack ever on Americans is also the government's greatest lie, according to many attending the 9/11 Accountability Conference.
One person told us she feels like they get nothing but lies and propaganda from the government when it comes to seeking answers about the attack.
The 9/11 Truth Movement began on the internet.
Followers cite alternative research that suggests the hijackers on the planes had help, and it wasn't from Osama Bin Laden. They question everything about the attacks.
Truth Movement supporters say they doubt much of what the government tells them about U.S. intelligence, the twin towers collapse and the investigations. Some people we talked to say the government has such highly sophisticated technology, that it would be impossible for the planes to go off course without anyone knowing.
Others say, the twin towers could not have collapsed the way they did without some kind of controlled demolition.
And many fear the government is using the war on terror to further an agenda to take away American's freedoms.
The 9-11 Truth followers are calling for a new independent investigation. They believe- high ranking U.S. government officials are covering up the truth, and may have in some way orchestrated the attacks.
As to why so many people chose to believe the government? Some say, it’s easier to go along with the majority than follow unpopular beliefs.
The conference runs through Sunday at the San Marcos Resort.
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/artic...2232007-CR.html
Oooooh,
HUNDREDS of people.
In a country of over a HUNDRED MILLION voters.
What a turnout (of course about 1/4 are probably cashing in on the other 3/4s)
The video is a hoot, a LOT of the people at that conference seem to be disguised as empty chairs.
Arthur
HUNDREDS of people.
In a country of over a HUNDRED MILLION voters.
What a turnout (of course about 1/4 are probably cashing in on the other 3/4s)
The video is a hoot, a LOT of the people at that conference seem to be disguised as empty chairs.
Arthur
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 25 2007, 01:57 PM)
and unbelievably RACIST!
Tell that to President Bush:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001/10/...e-detection.htm
Tell that to President Bush:
QUOTE
Technology alone may not find bin Laden's cave
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — President Bush is vowing to smoke Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants out of caves, but detecting subterranean lairs is no small feat.
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — President Bush is vowing to smoke Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants out of caves, but detecting subterranean lairs is no small feat.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001/10/...e-detection.htm
You don't seem to be able to distinguish between PRE 9/11 with the Taliban in control of Afghanistan and AFTER 9/11 when the Coalition forces removed the Taliban from power and OBL took to hiding in caves.
Try to keep up.
Arthur
Try to keep up.
Arthur
Wow, what deep physics has been done here today!
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2007, 03:50 AM)
You can SPECULATE about ANYTHING.
You have EVIDENCE of NOTHING.
What a WASTE of time.
Arthur
No Arthur, there's plenty of evidence. We're trying to explain the evidence. You're trying to ignore the evidence. We've got missing steel. Plenty of it. The videos and pictures clearly show steel disintegrating to dust. I know it's difficult to explain. So were the results of the Michaelson-Morley experiment. Some people at that time wanted to ignore them, or say they were wrong. But not Einstein. He accepted M-M's data, and came up with a revolutionary way to explain the fact that the velocity of light is constant regardless of the velocity of the observer.
Now, we have to come up with a way to explain how steel is disintegrated into dust. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending it didn't happen is not helpful.
You have EVIDENCE of NOTHING.
What a WASTE of time.
Arthur
No Arthur, there's plenty of evidence. We're trying to explain the evidence. You're trying to ignore the evidence. We've got missing steel. Plenty of it. The videos and pictures clearly show steel disintegrating to dust. I know it's difficult to explain. So were the results of the Michaelson-Morley experiment. Some people at that time wanted to ignore them, or say they were wrong. But not Einstein. He accepted M-M's data, and came up with a revolutionary way to explain the fact that the velocity of light is constant regardless of the velocity of the observer.
Now, we have to come up with a way to explain how steel is disintegrated into dust. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending it didn't happen is not helpful.
Don't confuse a REPEATABLE experiment with your UNPROVEN SPECULATION.
You have NOT shown that there was any missing steel.
You just don't believe the people hauled away as much as they claim they did.
But you have shown NO proof that your interpretation is correct.
Likewise you have NOT shown any proof that any steel turned to dust.
So just because YOU claim that that is what YOU percieve doesn't make it so.
Once again, you just wasting time.
Arthur
You have NOT shown that there was any missing steel.
You just don't believe the people hauled away as much as they claim they did.
But you have shown NO proof that your interpretation is correct.
Likewise you have NOT shown any proof that any steel turned to dust.
So just because YOU claim that that is what YOU percieve doesn't make it so.
Once again, you just wasting time.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 25 2007, 06:33 PM)
Tell that to President Bush:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001/10/...e-detection.htm
You seem to be a bit of an idiot, so I will try to spell it out for you.
A common CT argument, which you seem to be making, is that it would have been impossible for a cave dwelling Arab to mastermind the 911 attacks.
Oh you try to pretty it up with your cute pictures and drawings, but it is YOU that seems to be flaunting the racist belief that an Arab is incapable of learning how to fly an airplane.
It is YOU who keeps bringing up the caves as if that has anything to do with anything.
It is YOU who is an arrogant racist boor.
Please refrain from making these sorts of statements as I find them to be offensive. I do not support Bin-laden or any of his people, but I do vehemently oppose any form of racism.
YOur brand of close mindedness is exactly what the Bin Laden's of the world thrive on.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001/10/...e-detection.htm
You seem to be a bit of an idiot, so I will try to spell it out for you.
A common CT argument, which you seem to be making, is that it would have been impossible for a cave dwelling Arab to mastermind the 911 attacks.
Oh you try to pretty it up with your cute pictures and drawings, but it is YOU that seems to be flaunting the racist belief that an Arab is incapable of learning how to fly an airplane.
It is YOU who keeps bringing up the caves as if that has anything to do with anything.
It is YOU who is an arrogant racist boor.
Please refrain from making these sorts of statements as I find them to be offensive. I do not support Bin-laden or any of his people, but I do vehemently oppose any form of racism.
YOur brand of close mindedness is exactly what the Bin Laden's of the world thrive on.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 25 2007, 07:39 PM)
You seem to be a bit of an idiot, so I will try to spell it out for you.
A common CT argument, which you seem to be making, is that it would have been impossible for a cave dwelling Arab to mastermind the 911 attacks.
Oh you try to pretty it up with your cute pictures and drawings, but it is YOU that seems to be flaunting the racist belief that an Arab is incapable of learning how to fly an airplane.
It is YOU who keeps bringing up the caves as if that has anything to do with anything.
It is YOU who is an arrogant racist boor.
Please refrain from making these sorts of statements as I find them to be offensive. I do not support Bin-laden or any of his people, but I do vehemently oppose any form of racism.
YOur brand of close mindedness is exactly what the Bin Laden's of the world thrive on.
You can always leave the forum and find another job.
I could care less what you think of me or what you consider racist.
IF telling the truth is now racist , you and the other shill's will never be guilty of that.
A common CT argument, which you seem to be making, is that it would have been impossible for a cave dwelling Arab to mastermind the 911 attacks.
Oh you try to pretty it up with your cute pictures and drawings, but it is YOU that seems to be flaunting the racist belief that an Arab is incapable of learning how to fly an airplane.
It is YOU who keeps bringing up the caves as if that has anything to do with anything.
It is YOU who is an arrogant racist boor.
Please refrain from making these sorts of statements as I find them to be offensive. I do not support Bin-laden or any of his people, but I do vehemently oppose any form of racism.
YOur brand of close mindedness is exactly what the Bin Laden's of the world thrive on.
You can always leave the forum and find another job.
I could care less what you think of me or what you consider racist.
IF telling the truth is now racist , you and the other shill's will never be guilty of that.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 26 2007, 12:16 AM)
Oooooh,
HUNDREDS of people.
In a country of over a HUNDRED MILLION voters.
What a turnout (of course about 1/4 are probably cashing in on the other 3/4s)
The video is a hoot, a LOT of the people at that conference seem to be disguised as empty chairs.
Arthur
well, so?
a round table only seats ten.
(point being, it only takes ONE to change the world, but a little help is always appreciated)
HUNDREDS of people.
In a country of over a HUNDRED MILLION voters.
What a turnout (of course about 1/4 are probably cashing in on the other 3/4s)
The video is a hoot, a LOT of the people at that conference seem to be disguised as empty chairs.
Arthur
well, so?
a round table only seats ten.
(point being, it only takes ONE to change the world, but a little help is always appreciated)
QUOTE
Five Reasons To Deny
911 Was An Inside Job
By Douglas Herman
2-25-7
1.Comfort.
Comfortable people do not dissent. They rarely question authority, unless overwhelmed by fleeting pangs of conscience or momentary madness. Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world--a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community--want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all.
2. Complacency.
Complacent people rarely make waves, create dissension, cause an uproar. They prefer not to talk about politics and religion, nor to do any independent thinking. Because a complacent mind is a safe mind. Complacent people prefer "to get along to go along," to swim with the tide, to run with the herd, to blow with the wind. They like to mind their own business which, on the face of it, seems like common sense and the safe thing to do. Because to get passionately involved in any cause or belief (aside from sports) would require a lapse of complacency. Complacency, unlike comfort, requires a more practiced inertia. To accept the state or the status quo, with mild complaint--but only the mildest, acceptable complaint--and plod along like herd animals. To dare question the state, or debate popular consensus, is not only foolish and insane but borderline treasonable to the complacent citizen.
3. Cowardice
Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear, because to do otherwise, to look at the evidence presented by the most powerful empire in the world, requires a heretical leap of independent thought. A mental insurrection worthy of revolutionaries, pioneers, patriots and outraged citizens. But cowards cannot sift the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. They have been beaten and cowed and, at most, can only cringe and howl in derision from the rear. At every original thought or contrary opinion (contrary to the state and the corporate media that is), they howl and scurry away, anonymously. At best, their children may lead them, by example, into a braver realm of thought.
4. Conviction
Conviction--to be convinced of one's rightness---and the courage to assert it, is admirable even if one is proven wrong eventually. A great many believers (in the official story) are as convinced of the Kean Commission version of 911, as we skeptics are of their error. These believers claim, with many, many intelligent professionals to back up their claims, that steel does weaken and melt from fuel fires and big buildings do indeed collapse, that falling concrete does indeed pulverize into micro-sized dust particles, that incompetence does not necessary indicate evil. We truthers, in turn, claim the mass of incriminating evidence overwhelms the experts and trumps their testimony. So who is more right? Time will tell. But the only way we will ever convince these true believers (our co-workers, friends and family) of the falsity in the official, government version of 911 is to show them what a lying, poisonous, murderous, mercenary, fear-mongering, war-mongering, fascistic group they have put their faith in. And every day more and more disgruntled citizens are becoming convinced we may have a point.
5. Collusion
A secret activity undertaken by two or more people for the purpose of FRAUD. The definition of collusion. The US media colludes every day. They collude with the White House or Pentagon or State Department to perpetrate some fraud or other. And many of us collude right along with them. The smallest group of 911 deniers, numbering several million, which I call the Colluders, includes many who have worked for the US government, still work for the US government, receive huge chunks of money from that government to fund their work, depend on contracts from the US government and, more often than not, support the official US government line. Many of them, working high in the US government--NSA, FBI, CIA, Pentagon officials---know exactly what happened on 911 but keep quiet. Colluding all the way to the bank. Privately they may not agree with many aspects of the official version but, publicly, they will NOT utter a single statement, will NOT go on record, publicly, with a single dissenting word. Not while there is money to be made. And so, of all the 911 deniers, they are most complicit with the crime.
Comfort. Complacency. Cowardice. Conviction. Collusion. And sometimes a combination of all of them.
Footnote: A tip of the cap to those activists at 911Blogger.com Not only do I read the columns posted there but the remarks (an addiction) and sneers from the trolls. This column is dedicated to the 911 activists everywhere, in recognition of the five types of people you run up against every day--and I mean against.
911 Was An Inside Job
By Douglas Herman
2-25-7
1.Comfort.
Comfortable people do not dissent. They rarely question authority, unless overwhelmed by fleeting pangs of conscience or momentary madness. Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world--a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community--want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all.
2. Complacency.
Complacent people rarely make waves, create dissension, cause an uproar. They prefer not to talk about politics and religion, nor to do any independent thinking. Because a complacent mind is a safe mind. Complacent people prefer "to get along to go along," to swim with the tide, to run with the herd, to blow with the wind. They like to mind their own business which, on the face of it, seems like common sense and the safe thing to do. Because to get passionately involved in any cause or belief (aside from sports) would require a lapse of complacency. Complacency, unlike comfort, requires a more practiced inertia. To accept the state or the status quo, with mild complaint--but only the mildest, acceptable complaint--and plod along like herd animals. To dare question the state, or debate popular consensus, is not only foolish and insane but borderline treasonable to the complacent citizen.
3. Cowardice
Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear, because to do otherwise, to look at the evidence presented by the most powerful empire in the world, requires a heretical leap of independent thought. A mental insurrection worthy of revolutionaries, pioneers, patriots and outraged citizens. But cowards cannot sift the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. They have been beaten and cowed and, at most, can only cringe and howl in derision from the rear. At every original thought or contrary opinion (contrary to the state and the corporate media that is), they howl and scurry away, anonymously. At best, their children may lead them, by example, into a braver realm of thought.
4. Conviction
Conviction--to be convinced of one's rightness---and the courage to assert it, is admirable even if one is proven wrong eventually. A great many believers (in the official story) are as convinced of the Kean Commission version of 911, as we skeptics are of their error. These believers claim, with many, many intelligent professionals to back up their claims, that steel does weaken and melt from fuel fires and big buildings do indeed collapse, that falling concrete does indeed pulverize into micro-sized dust particles, that incompetence does not necessary indicate evil. We truthers, in turn, claim the mass of incriminating evidence overwhelms the experts and trumps their testimony. So who is more right? Time will tell. But the only way we will ever convince these true believers (our co-workers, friends and family) of the falsity in the official, government version of 911 is to show them what a lying, poisonous, murderous, mercenary, fear-mongering, war-mongering, fascistic group they have put their faith in. And every day more and more disgruntled citizens are becoming convinced we may have a point.
5. Collusion
A secret activity undertaken by two or more people for the purpose of FRAUD. The definition of collusion. The US media colludes every day. They collude with the White House or Pentagon or State Department to perpetrate some fraud or other. And many of us collude right along with them. The smallest group of 911 deniers, numbering several million, which I call the Colluders, includes many who have worked for the US government, still work for the US government, receive huge chunks of money from that government to fund their work, depend on contracts from the US government and, more often than not, support the official US government line. Many of them, working high in the US government--NSA, FBI, CIA, Pentagon officials---know exactly what happened on 911 but keep quiet. Colluding all the way to the bank. Privately they may not agree with many aspects of the official version but, publicly, they will NOT utter a single statement, will NOT go on record, publicly, with a single dissenting word. Not while there is money to be made. And so, of all the 911 deniers, they are most complicit with the crime.
Comfort. Complacency. Cowardice. Conviction. Collusion. And sometimes a combination of all of them.
Footnote: A tip of the cap to those activists at 911Blogger.com Not only do I read the columns posted there but the remarks (an addiction) and sneers from the trolls. This column is dedicated to the 911 activists everywhere, in recognition of the five types of people you run up against every day--and I mean against.
Hi everyone,
I don't know whether anybody posted this link or not, so here you go:
The Destruction Of World Trade Center
I don't have any personal opinion on this subject, so I am just posting it in case any of you are interested.
I don't know whether anybody posted this link or not, so here you go:
The Destruction Of World Trade Center
I don't have any personal opinion on this subject, so I am just posting it in case any of you are interested.
QUOTE (shagster+Feb 25 2007, 05:13 PM)
Something is wrong with that figure of 600,000 lbs for the three trees in the WFC building.
From Blue's core data, the mass of all the core columns for the 83rd story was 200,000 lbs (3m^2 column area).
3.78m * 3m^2 * 7850kg/m^3 = 8.9E4 kg = 200,000 lbs
Three perimeter trees from the upper levels can't be 600,000 lbs. That's 3 times the entire core mass of the 83rd story.
In the aircraft impact region, the plates of the perimeter trees were about 0.25 inch and the spandrels were about 3/8 inch. That works out to about 3.45 tons per tree or 6900 lbs. Three trees would be about 21,000 lbs, not 600,000 lb. They would have been ejected from the upper half of the tower to reach Winter Garden or WFC, so the columns were relatively thin-walled.
Each story had 80 trees and the mass of the trees per story was 80/3. In the aircraft impact region the mass of the trees per story would be approximately:
6900*80/3 = 184,000 lbs = 8.4E4 kg
That's about the same mass per story as the core columns. The perimeter carried about the same load as the core, so the cross-sectional area, volume, and mass of the perimeter trees per story are expected to be similar to that of the core columns.
NIST probably has exact dimensions of the perimeter trees. The figures I posted are approximate.
shagster, here are some weights for perimeter column sections.
FROM ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD:
Using the lighter gauge dimensions, I got a figure of about 3.5 tons.
From Blue's core data, the mass of all the core columns for the 83rd story was 200,000 lbs (3m^2 column area).
3.78m * 3m^2 * 7850kg/m^3 = 8.9E4 kg = 200,000 lbs
Three perimeter trees from the upper levels can't be 600,000 lbs. That's 3 times the entire core mass of the 83rd story.
In the aircraft impact region, the plates of the perimeter trees were about 0.25 inch and the spandrels were about 3/8 inch. That works out to about 3.45 tons per tree or 6900 lbs. Three trees would be about 21,000 lbs, not 600,000 lb. They would have been ejected from the upper half of the tower to reach Winter Garden or WFC, so the columns were relatively thin-walled.
Each story had 80 trees and the mass of the trees per story was 80/3. In the aircraft impact region the mass of the trees per story would be approximately:
6900*80/3 = 184,000 lbs = 8.4E4 kg
That's about the same mass per story as the core columns. The perimeter carried about the same load as the core, so the cross-sectional area, volume, and mass of the perimeter trees per story are expected to be similar to that of the core columns.
NIST probably has exact dimensions of the perimeter trees. The figures I posted are approximate.
shagster, here are some weights for perimeter column sections.
FROM ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD:
QUOTE
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. Each panel consists of three box columns, 14 in. square, made up of plate up to 3 in. thick and, connected by 54-in, deep spandrels.
I took some dimensions from NIST NCSTAR 1-3B, and calculated a heavy section at about 19 tons.Using the lighter gauge dimensions, I got a figure of about 3.5 tons.
QUOTE ( reasonwhy+ Feb 26 2007, 6:30 AM)
Comfort. Complacency. Cowardice. Conviction. Collusion. And sometimes a combination of all of them.
Doug, you left out Contempt, for all of the senseless opinions that you and your fellow CTs continually regurgitate.
Alpha & Ace:
I will pay heed to the scientific musings of theologians and musicians on the day that scientists preach the Gospel in my local church and engineers conduct symphonies at my local concert hall............
NF
I will pay heed to the scientific musings of theologians and musicians on the day that scientists preach the Gospel in my local church and engineers conduct symphonies at my local concert hall............
NF
Getting back to this little gem:
How was it "disintegrated?"
I speculate that "they" have figured out how to dissociate steel by exciting the molecules, either at the molecular bonds, or in the nucleus. I speculate that it works by creating interference patterns between two beams, and in the region of the interference one or both of two things happens:
OK, stop right there.
What exactly do you mean by “beams?” are you talking about a form of electromagnetic energy? How are these “beams” formed? How are they collimated? Are the beams coherent? If so, how is that accomplished?
How do they “interfere” with each other? Are there angles involved? The distance between the sources? Please clarify.
1) Specific molecules absorb energy at this particular wavelength, similar to how a water molecule selectively absorbs microwave radiation, thus breaking chemical bonds and/or splitting the nucleus.
Do you understand how a microwave heats water? How is this similar or different from steel?
What wavelengths of energy are we talking about here? What wavelength do you use to split the nucleus?
2) Molecules are made to vibrate according to their natural resonant frequency, thus breaking chemical bonds and or splitting the nucleus.
What molecules are you talking about and what is their “natural frequency?”
Arthur
Typical, a CT'er claiming the high moral ground when he has shown absolutely NO JUSIFICATION for doing it.
1.Comfort.
Comfortable people do not dissent.
BS. If that were true there would be no groups like Greenpeace, Abortion rights etc.
2. Complacency.
BS. The people who WORKED on the NIST report were hardly complacent, nor the thousands of GZ workers, or the scientists/engineers that scoured the steel looking for clues.
3. Cowardice
BS -
Typical, a CT'er claiming the high moral ground when he has shown absolutely NO JUSIFICATION for doing it.
1.Comfort.
Comfortable people do not dissent.
BS. If that were true there would be no groups like Greenpeace, Abortion rights etc.
2. Complacency.
BS. The people who WORKED on the NIST report were hardly complacent, nor the thousands of GZ workers, or the scientists/engineers that scoured the steel looking for clues.
3. Cowardice
BS - Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear,
What a SELF SERVING CROCK, who the hell is AFRAID to deny 9/11 when as we just read hundreds attend a PUBLIC convention in Tempe and even get Local Media coverage, while they party down at the Crowne Plaza.
4. Conviction
A main difference between CTers and OCTers. While CTers ARE convinced that they are right, OCT'ers aren't convinced of THEIR rightness, they tend to rely on SCIENCE and the in depth study performed by NIST to determine the most PROBABLE explanation of the towers collapse.
5. Collusion
BS The whole who's IN ON IT angle:
A main difference between CTers and OCTers. While CTers ARE convinced that they are right, OCT'ers aren't convinced of THEIR rightness, they tend to rely on SCIENCE and the in depth study performed by NIST to determine the most PROBABLE explanation of the towers collapse.
5. Collusion
BS The whole who's IN ON IT angle:
The smallest group of 911 deniers, numbering several million, which I call the Colluders, includes many who have worked for the US government, still work for the US government, receive huge chunks of money from that government to fund their work, depend on contracts from the US government and, more often than not, support the official US government line. Many of them, working high in the US government--NSA, FBI, CIA, Pentagon officials---know exactly what happened on 911 but keep quiet. Colluding all the way to the bank.
So now they are covering up 9/11 for money?????
The whole article is SELF SERVING and as usual, contains not ONE SHRED of evidence to support ANY of its pathetic conclusions.
Arthur
Typical, a CT'er claiming the high moral ground when he has shown absolutely NO JUSIFICATION for doing it.
1.Comfort.
Comfortable people do not dissent.
BS. If that were true there would be no groups like Greenpeace, Abortion rights etc.
2. Complacency.
BS. The people who WORKED on the NIST report were hardly complacent, nor the thousands of GZ workers, or the scientists/engineers that scoured the steel looking for clues.
3. Cowardice
BS -
What a SELF SERVING CROCK, who the hell is AFRAID to deny 9/11 when as we just read hundreds attend a PUBLIC convention in Tempe and even get Local Media coverage, while they party down at the Crowne Plaza.
4. Conviction
A main difference between CTers and OCTers. While CTers ARE convinced that they are right, OCT'ers aren't convinced of THEIR rightness, they tend to rely on SCIENCE and the in depth study performed by NIST to determine the most PROBABLE explanation of the towers collapse.
5. Collusion
BS The whole who's IN ON IT angle:
So now they are covering up 9/11 for money?????
The whole article is SELF SERVING and as usual, contains not ONE SHRED of evidence to support ANY of its pathetic conclusions.
Arthur
The funnest thing I have seen on this forum, is that Cters are talking about electromagnetic beam weapons and forgetting the effects of electromagnetic beams on the atmospheric phenomena.
Any weapons capable of destroying steel would have had atmospheric effects as they travel though air.
Why were none visible in New York on that day?
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 22 2007, 11:17 PM)
How was it "disintegrated?"
I speculate that "they" have figured out how to dissociate steel by exciting the molecules, either at the molecular bonds, or in the nucleus. I speculate that it works by creating interference patterns between two beams, and in the region of the interference one or both of two things happens:
OK, stop right there.
What exactly do you mean by “beams?” are you talking about a form of electromagnetic energy? How are these “beams” formed? How are they collimated? Are the beams coherent? If so, how is that accomplished?
How do they “interfere” with each other? Are there angles involved? The distance between the sources? Please clarify.
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 22 2007, 11:17 PM)
1) Specific molecules absorb energy at this particular wavelength, similar to how a water molecule selectively absorbs microwave radiation, thus breaking chemical bonds and/or splitting the nucleus.
Do you understand how a microwave heats water? How is this similar or different from steel?
What wavelengths of energy are we talking about here? What wavelength do you use to split the nucleus?
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 22 2007, 11:17 PM)
2) Molecules are made to vibrate according to their natural resonant frequency, thus breaking chemical bonds and or splitting the nucleus.
What molecules are you talking about and what is their “natural frequency?”
QUOTE
What wavelength do you use to split the nucleus?
Arthur
QUOTE
Five Reasons To Deny
911 Was An Inside Job
911 Was An Inside Job
Typical, a CT'er claiming the high moral ground when he has shown absolutely NO JUSIFICATION for doing it.
1.Comfort.
Comfortable people do not dissent.
BS. If that were true there would be no groups like Greenpeace, Abortion rights etc.
2. Complacency.
BS. The people who WORKED on the NIST report were hardly complacent, nor the thousands of GZ workers, or the scientists/engineers that scoured the steel looking for clues.
3. Cowardice
BS -
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Five Reasons To Deny 911 Was An Inside Job |
Typical, a CT'er claiming the high moral ground when he has shown absolutely NO JUSIFICATION for doing it.
1.Comfort.
Comfortable people do not dissent.
BS. If that were true there would be no groups like Greenpeace, Abortion rights etc.
2. Complacency.
BS. The people who WORKED on the NIST report were hardly complacent, nor the thousands of GZ workers, or the scientists/engineers that scoured the steel looking for clues.
3. Cowardice
BS - Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear,
What a SELF SERVING CROCK, who the hell is AFRAID to deny 9/11 when as we just read hundreds attend a PUBLIC convention in Tempe and even get Local Media coverage, while they party down at the Crowne Plaza.
4. Conviction
QUOTE
Conviction--to be convinced of one's rightness---and the courage to assert it, is admirable even if one is proven wrong eventually.
A main difference between CTers and OCTers. While CTers ARE convinced that they are right, OCT'ers aren't convinced of THEIR rightness, they tend to rely on SCIENCE and the in depth study performed by NIST to determine the most PROBABLE explanation of the towers collapse.
5. Collusion
BS The whole who's IN ON IT angle:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Conviction--to be convinced of one's rightness---and the courage to assert it, is admirable even if one is proven wrong eventually. |
A main difference between CTers and OCTers. While CTers ARE convinced that they are right, OCT'ers aren't convinced of THEIR rightness, they tend to rely on SCIENCE and the in depth study performed by NIST to determine the most PROBABLE explanation of the towers collapse.
5. Collusion
BS The whole who's IN ON IT angle:
The smallest group of 911 deniers, numbering several million, which I call the Colluders, includes many who have worked for the US government, still work for the US government, receive huge chunks of money from that government to fund their work, depend on contracts from the US government and, more often than not, support the official US government line. Many of them, working high in the US government--NSA, FBI, CIA, Pentagon officials---know exactly what happened on 911 but keep quiet. Colluding all the way to the bank.
So now they are covering up 9/11 for money?????
The whole article is SELF SERVING and as usual, contains not ONE SHRED of evidence to support ANY of its pathetic conclusions.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 26 2007, 03:04 PM)
Typical, a CT'er claiming the high moral ground when he has shown absolutely NO JUSIFICATION for doing it.
1.Comfort.
Comfortable people do not dissent.
BS. If that were true there would be no groups like Greenpeace, Abortion rights etc.
2. Complacency.
BS. The people who WORKED on the NIST report were hardly complacent, nor the thousands of GZ workers, or the scientists/engineers that scoured the steel looking for clues.
3. Cowardice
BS -
What a SELF SERVING CROCK, who the hell is AFRAID to deny 9/11 when as we just read hundreds attend a PUBLIC convention in Tempe and even get Local Media coverage, while they party down at the Crowne Plaza.
4. Conviction
A main difference between CTers and OCTers. While CTers ARE convinced that they are right, OCT'ers aren't convinced of THEIR rightness, they tend to rely on SCIENCE and the in depth study performed by NIST to determine the most PROBABLE explanation of the towers collapse.
5. Collusion
BS The whole who's IN ON IT angle:
So now they are covering up 9/11 for money?????
The whole article is SELF SERVING and as usual, contains not ONE SHRED of evidence to support ANY of its pathetic conclusions.
Arthur
The funnest thing I have seen on this forum, is that Cters are talking about electromagnetic beam weapons and forgetting the effects of electromagnetic beams on the atmospheric phenomena.
Any weapons capable of destroying steel would have had atmospheric effects as they travel though air.
Why were none visible in New York on that day?
Not all CT'ers believe in that space stuff
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 26 2007, 12:08 PM)
Not all CT'ers believe in that space stuff
Every CT'er believes in SOMETHING for which there is NO EVIDENCE to support.
Space beams are WAY out there, but then so are Mini-Nukes.
While things like Thermate and pre-hidden high explosives don't involve unknown technology they still involve teams of people working in the towers for weeks on end planting said devices without them or the devices being noticed.
EVERY SINGLE method proposed by CT'ers as an ALTERNATIVE explanation is just as bogus as Space Beams and just as lacking in proof.
Arthur
Every CT'er believes in SOMETHING for which there is NO EVIDENCE to support.
Space beams are WAY out there, but then so are Mini-Nukes.
While things like Thermate and pre-hidden high explosives don't involve unknown technology they still involve teams of people working in the towers for weeks on end planting said devices without them or the devices being noticed.
EVERY SINGLE method proposed by CT'ers as an ALTERNATIVE explanation is just as bogus as Space Beams and just as lacking in proof.
Arthur
And none explain the observed pull-in of the walls.
Only NIST explains that.
Only NIST explains that.
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.