Guys, the Conspiracy Theory falls apart at the *conspiracy theory* part.
You have a muddled mishmash of fiendishly-clever operatives and incredibly-stupid planners. Ninja thermite fairies planting nanoMEMS-triggered silent explosives and/or thermite used simply to raise the temperature of an office fire already fuelled by a fully-fuelled commercial jet impacts.
With random explosives going-off amid the evacuation of occupants, allowing witnesses to the explosions to escape alive.
All this mushy-thinking and elaborate planning...
It would've been simpler, had they wanted the towers to collapse, to make them collapse upon impact of the jets, so the stupid 2/3rds of the public would see what they expected to see. The thing is, when you can think of easier ways of doing the same thing, you need to establish some reason for them doing it the hard way.
Incidentally, you'd expect flashes of light and BANGS in a steel-framed structure that was on-fire. That's what happens when live power cables (insulated with rubber) come in contact with shorts-to-ground. Flash-BANG! Like lightning and thunder, only inside the building.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 09:08 PM)
Your implication is that WITHOUT this weakening the towers would have stood.
WRONG!
In that case your idea is even less compelling.
Risk goes up SUBSTANTIALLY but for what purpose, to insure that the towers fell?
Do you think the US would not have been that upset had the towers NOT fallen?????
The majority of the people above the impact floors in WTC 1 were doomed regardless of what happened.
The towers were history even if they hadn't fallen.
The death toll from the 4 planes and from the impacts alone was horrendous.
It didn't take the falling of the towers to "seal the deal".
As to the VAST conspiracy you have dreamt up, until you did much of the ~ $20 million dollars worth of reseach that NIST performed you would have NO BASIS for knowing how the towers would perform.
Do you think its that easy to figure out the impact of a 767 on the towers given the range of variables involved?
Do you think its that easy to then figure out the spread and duration and impact of the fires on the towers?
It wasn't easy for NIST and they had hundreds of very specialized scientists working on it for years, sophisticated computer networks and specialized software, not to mention thousands of pictures and hours of videos of what DID happen as a guide.
I'm curious, what huge NISTian like department did this preliminary work and is keeping it secret to this day even after figuring out what they did the work for?
What MIB group borrowed a set of WTC drawings from The PA and used it to know where to go in and put in the thermite and is keeping it secret to this day even though they know they helped to kill their fellow citizens?
Where did the 2 spare 767s come from that were rigged to fly by remote control?
How many people from United/AA and Boeing would have to be in on it and keep it secret to this day, even though they now know their actions helped to kill their fellow citizens.
Where are the pilots/crew and all the people who were on the planes or did their buds at AA/United willingly send them to their death and then keep quite about it?
Sorry Max, but as far as theories go MAX-MIHOP is Total horse pucky.
But thanks for playing.
Pick up you consolation gift on the way out.
Arthur
WRONG!
In that case your idea is even less compelling.
Risk goes up SUBSTANTIALLY but for what purpose, to insure that the towers fell?
Do you think the US would not have been that upset had the towers NOT fallen?????
The majority of the people above the impact floors in WTC 1 were doomed regardless of what happened.
The towers were history even if they hadn't fallen.
The death toll from the 4 planes and from the impacts alone was horrendous.
It didn't take the falling of the towers to "seal the deal".
As to the VAST conspiracy you have dreamt up, until you did much of the ~ $20 million dollars worth of reseach that NIST performed you would have NO BASIS for knowing how the towers would perform.
Do you think its that easy to figure out the impact of a 767 on the towers given the range of variables involved?
Do you think its that easy to then figure out the spread and duration and impact of the fires on the towers?
It wasn't easy for NIST and they had hundreds of very specialized scientists working on it for years, sophisticated computer networks and specialized software, not to mention thousands of pictures and hours of videos of what DID happen as a guide.
I'm curious, what huge NISTian like department did this preliminary work and is keeping it secret to this day even after figuring out what they did the work for?
What MIB group borrowed a set of WTC drawings from The PA and used it to know where to go in and put in the thermite and is keeping it secret to this day even though they know they helped to kill their fellow citizens?
Where did the 2 spare 767s come from that were rigged to fly by remote control?
How many people from United/AA and Boeing would have to be in on it and keep it secret to this day, even though they now know their actions helped to kill their fellow citizens.
Where are the pilots/crew and all the people who were on the planes or did their buds at AA/United willingly send them to their death and then keep quite about it?
Sorry Max, but as far as theories go MAX-MIHOP is Total horse pucky.
But thanks for playing.
Pick up you consolation gift on the way out.
Arthur
Arthur,
Was any of that $20 million spent on investigating the possibility of arson? After all, there were fires.
And did you ever consider arson?
Was any of that $20 million spent on investigating the possibility of arson? After all, there were fires.
And did you ever consider arson?
Yeah Max, there were fires.
Thanks for stating the obvious.
They were deliberately set.
So that makes the fires Arson.
Again obvious.
Now what there is NO EVIDENCE for is for THERMITE fires planted in the columns/trusses/spandrels.
You've been asked to provide some and have repeatedly failed to do so.
Why do you persist on pushing a idea for which you can produce no evidence to support?
Why do you keep asking if others have considered an idea for which there is no evidence to warrent consideration?
Arthur
Thanks for stating the obvious.
They were deliberately set.
So that makes the fires Arson.
Again obvious.
Now what there is NO EVIDENCE for is for THERMITE fires planted in the columns/trusses/spandrels.
You've been asked to provide some and have repeatedly failed to do so.
Why do you persist on pushing a idea for which you can produce no evidence to support?
Why do you keep asking if others have considered an idea for which there is no evidence to warrent consideration?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2008, 04:10 AM)
Yeah Max, there were fires.
Thanks for stating the obvious.
They were deliberately set.
So that makes the fires Arson.
Again obvious.
Now what there is NO EVIDENCE for is for THERMITE fires planted in the columns/trusses/spandrels.
You've been asked to provide some and have repeatedly failed to do so.
Why do you persist on pushing a idea for which you can produce no evidence to support?
Why do you keep asking if others have considered an idea for which there is no evidence to warrent consideration?
Arthur
Arthur,
Did you ever consider controlled demolition by arson - by heat-weakening - beyond the fired induced by the jets?
Did NIST consider controlled-demolition by arson - beyond the fires induced by the jets?
Do you know of anyone who considered controlled demolition by arson - beyond the fires induced by the jets?
If the answers are no, please just have the integrity to say so.
Max
Thanks for stating the obvious.
They were deliberately set.
So that makes the fires Arson.
Again obvious.
Now what there is NO EVIDENCE for is for THERMITE fires planted in the columns/trusses/spandrels.
You've been asked to provide some and have repeatedly failed to do so.
Why do you persist on pushing a idea for which you can produce no evidence to support?
Why do you keep asking if others have considered an idea for which there is no evidence to warrent consideration?
Arthur
Arthur,
Did you ever consider controlled demolition by arson - by heat-weakening - beyond the fired induced by the jets?
Did NIST consider controlled-demolition by arson - beyond the fires induced by the jets?
Do you know of anyone who considered controlled demolition by arson - beyond the fires induced by the jets?
If the answers are no, please just have the integrity to say so.
Max
Max, did you stop beating your wife?
If the answer is no, please just have the integrity to say so.
Arthur
If the answer is no, please just have the integrity to say so.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2008, 04:55 AM)
Max, did you stop beating your wife?
If the answer is no, please just have the integrity to say so.
Arthur
Arthur,
That is one bizarre response.
You asked why I keep asking whether you, NIST, or any of the experts considered arson (beyond the fires induced by the jets).
I keep asking only because you don't answer.
Shall I take your non-answers, and your evasiveness, as a:
"No Max, amazingly, no one ever thought to consider that the fires were arson."
If no one did, there's no shame. (Well, acutally, this is a lot of shame, and incompetence, and legal liability, and...)
Max
If the answer is no, please just have the integrity to say so.
Arthur
Arthur,
That is one bizarre response.
You asked why I keep asking whether you, NIST, or any of the experts considered arson (beyond the fires induced by the jets).
I keep asking only because you don't answer.
Shall I take your non-answers, and your evasiveness, as a:
"No Max, amazingly, no one ever thought to consider that the fires were arson."
If no one did, there's no shame. (Well, acutally, this is a lot of shame, and incompetence, and legal liability, and...)
Max
Max:
Just a few points:
1. About the visco-elastic dampers: the visco-elastic material was, I believe, a 3M butyl rubber or acrylic polymer. It's exact formulation is not important because ALL polymeric materials decompose/burn at 400 deg C, OR LESS. Hence I am sure that dampers in the fire-affected zones would have been destroyed WITHOUT the help of thermite.
2. I am having difficulty understanding how thermite could have been poured into the exterior columns without cutting a hole in the office wall covering to expose the bolt access holes. Thus, while placing thermite at other locations might have been relatively simple, the placement of thermite in the vitally important exterior columns would have been a major problem. Max, how many offices would have had some shady "maintenance guy" come and carry out this task without anyone asking a few questions?
3. Thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite and yet you talk about "thermite fuses" as if these are well known devices that are foolproof in operation. Please elaborate on this and indicate exactly how these things work, where they were placed in the building, and what was the assurance that accidental pre-ignition could not occur.
4. I should finally add, (in your favour), that the question of the alleged lack of evidence for your theory is surely missing the point that thermite residues would be very difficult to detect in a rubble pile consisting of iron and aluminum from the aircraft debris and the building's pulverized construction materials. I also doubt that anyone thought to look INSIDE an exterior column. In any case, evidence of extreme heating/scorching of exterior columns would probably have been attributed to the fires.
However, Max, this simply brings us back to my point No. 2.........
Just a few points:
1. About the visco-elastic dampers: the visco-elastic material was, I believe, a 3M butyl rubber or acrylic polymer. It's exact formulation is not important because ALL polymeric materials decompose/burn at 400 deg C, OR LESS. Hence I am sure that dampers in the fire-affected zones would have been destroyed WITHOUT the help of thermite.
2. I am having difficulty understanding how thermite could have been poured into the exterior columns without cutting a hole in the office wall covering to expose the bolt access holes. Thus, while placing thermite at other locations might have been relatively simple, the placement of thermite in the vitally important exterior columns would have been a major problem. Max, how many offices would have had some shady "maintenance guy" come and carry out this task without anyone asking a few questions?
3. Thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite and yet you talk about "thermite fuses" as if these are well known devices that are foolproof in operation. Please elaborate on this and indicate exactly how these things work, where they were placed in the building, and what was the assurance that accidental pre-ignition could not occur.
4. I should finally add, (in your favour), that the question of the alleged lack of evidence for your theory is surely missing the point that thermite residues would be very difficult to detect in a rubble pile consisting of iron and aluminum from the aircraft debris and the building's pulverized construction materials. I also doubt that anyone thought to look INSIDE an exterior column. In any case, evidence of extreme heating/scorching of exterior columns would probably have been attributed to the fires.
However, Max, this simply brings us back to my point No. 2.........
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 01:04 PM)
Arthur,
That is one bizarre response.
You asked why I keep asking whether you, NIST, or any of the experts considered arson (beyond the fires induced by the jets).
I keep asking only because you don't answer.
Shall I take your non-answers, and your evasiveness, as a:
"No Max, amazingly, no one ever thought to consider that the fires were arson."
If no one did, there's no shame. (Well, acutally, this is a lot of shame, and incompetence, and legal liability, and...)
Max
Max they actually found evidence of oxidized aluminum and they looked for more evidence of oxidized aluminum, they did not find much.
Since they specifically looked for evidence of Oxidized aluminum and did not find it I would assume that they would have noticed thermite residue oxidized aluminum on the beams since it would tend to coat them.
Also would not evidence of deformation be uneven if small amounts of thermite were place as you say where you say, that is not shown.
Max we could say that Romulans with repulser beams from space shoved on the buildings causing it to collapse, however until Romulans or repulser beams can be proved fact it is only speculation and speculation is not science.
I encourage you to investigate and research Max, however I can not agree with your conclusions because I see no Emperical evidence to surport them.
That is one bizarre response.
You asked why I keep asking whether you, NIST, or any of the experts considered arson (beyond the fires induced by the jets).
I keep asking only because you don't answer.
Shall I take your non-answers, and your evasiveness, as a:
"No Max, amazingly, no one ever thought to consider that the fires were arson."
If no one did, there's no shame. (Well, acutally, this is a lot of shame, and incompetence, and legal liability, and...)
Max
Max they actually found evidence of oxidized aluminum and they looked for more evidence of oxidized aluminum, they did not find much.
Since they specifically looked for evidence of Oxidized aluminum and did not find it I would assume that they would have noticed thermite residue oxidized aluminum on the beams since it would tend to coat them.
Also would not evidence of deformation be uneven if small amounts of thermite were place as you say where you say, that is not shown.
Max we could say that Romulans with repulser beams from space shoved on the buildings causing it to collapse, however until Romulans or repulser beams can be proved fact it is only speculation and speculation is not science.
I encourage you to investigate and research Max, however I can not agree with your conclusions because I see no Emperical evidence to surport them.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jan 4 2008, 01:55 PM)
Max we could say that Romulans with repulser beams from space shoved on the buildings causing it to collapse, however until Romulans or repulser beams can be proved fact it is only speculation and speculation is not science.
Guys, is there any way we can skip all variations of the above little science lecture.
Not only is it boring, it is also a little frightening to get a window into such narrow, rigid thinking.
CC, your comments about the aluminum oxide - while interesting - do not answer the question I've put to David and Arthur - in several variations:
Did anyone consider, and investigate for, controlled-demolition by arson?
Also, from here on in, when I say "arson" I mean "arson beyond the fires induced by the jets," so if you could kindly spare me endless posts telling me the jet fires were arson (I get it), and comprehend my use of the word arson, I'd appreciate it.
Now, its a fresh new day. Who feels frisky enough to answer my question?
Max
Guys, is there any way we can skip all variations of the above little science lecture.
Not only is it boring, it is also a little frightening to get a window into such narrow, rigid thinking.
CC, your comments about the aluminum oxide - while interesting - do not answer the question I've put to David and Arthur - in several variations:
Did anyone consider, and investigate for, controlled-demolition by arson?
Also, from here on in, when I say "arson" I mean "arson beyond the fires induced by the jets," so if you could kindly spare me endless posts telling me the jet fires were arson (I get it), and comprehend my use of the word arson, I'd appreciate it.
Now, its a fresh new day. Who feels frisky enough to answer my question?
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 08:04 AM)
"No Max, amazingly, no one ever thought to consider that the fires were arson."
If no one did, there's no shame. (Well, acutally, this is a lot of shame, and incompetence, and legal liability, and...)
No, Max, I asked you:
If no one did, there's no shame. (Well, acutally, this is a lot of shame, and incompetence, and legal liability, and...)
No, Max, I asked you:
QUOTE (Arthur+)
Why do you persist on pushing a idea for which you can produce no evidence to support?
Why do you keep asking if others have considered an idea for which there is no evidence to warrant consideration?
You failed to answer EITHER question.
As you failed to answer my previous questions:
Why do you keep asking if others have considered an idea for which there is no evidence to warrant consideration?
You failed to answer EITHER question.
As you failed to answer my previous questions:
QUOTE (Arthur+)
What huge NISTian like department did this preliminary work and is keeping it secret to this day even after figuring out what they did the work for?
What MIB group borrowed a set of WTC drawings from The PA and used it to know where to go in and put in the thermite and is keeping it secret to this day even though they know they helped to kill their fellow citizens?
Where did the 2 spare 767s come from that were rigged to fly by remote control?
How many people from United/AA and Boeing would have to be in on it and keep it secret to this day, even though they now know their actions helped to kill their fellow citizens.
Where are the pilots/crew and all the people who were on the planes or did their buds at AA/United willingly send them to their death and then keep quite about it?
But, even though you evaded the questions (as expected) I knew you would finally get around to posting your opinion that NIST was incompetent.
(long break from laughing so hard I couldn't type)
AFAIK, NIST considered anything that the EVIDENCE supported.
So my guess is they ignored those things, like Space Beams, Mini-Nukes, Pyroclastic flows, Ninja Thermite Faeries etc etc for which there was NO EVIDENCE.
Now if you HAD proof of some important evidence that NIST ignored, THEN you could make your claim.
Its quite obvious you don't or you would have produced it.
Arthur
What MIB group borrowed a set of WTC drawings from The PA and used it to know where to go in and put in the thermite and is keeping it secret to this day even though they know they helped to kill their fellow citizens?
Where did the 2 spare 767s come from that were rigged to fly by remote control?
How many people from United/AA and Boeing would have to be in on it and keep it secret to this day, even though they now know their actions helped to kill their fellow citizens.
Where are the pilots/crew and all the people who were on the planes or did their buds at AA/United willingly send them to their death and then keep quite about it?
But, even though you evaded the questions (as expected) I knew you would finally get around to posting your opinion that NIST was incompetent.
(long break from laughing so hard I couldn't type)
AFAIK, NIST considered anything that the EVIDENCE supported.
So my guess is they ignored those things, like Space Beams, Mini-Nukes, Pyroclastic flows, Ninja Thermite Faeries etc etc for which there was NO EVIDENCE.
Now if you HAD proof of some important evidence that NIST ignored, THEN you could make your claim.
Its quite obvious you don't or you would have produced it.
Arthur
Arthur,
I believe I am the ONLY truther who argues that the NIST Reports tell the truth.
Max
I believe I am the ONLY truther who argues that the NIST Reports tell the truth.
Max
Arthur,
Consider this video.
Do you have any idea what NIST made of the little flickering white flashes moving diagonally from the upper right to the lower left? (There is also a vertical sequence of white flashes at spandrels in the first half second, so look fast.)
What are those?
Putting aside the metal flow, note the white glow just to the left of the metal flow. Note how it is correlated in time with the white flickering flashes.
I don't expect you to see it, but the keen eye can see that the white flashes are also correlated with a sequence of those crazy "coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of an old fashion steam driven pipe organ".
Now what would explain these OBSERVATIONS?
Note that these flashes show up in other video, from different angles.
Is there any chance whatsoever that those flashes are some kind of ignition system?
What did NIST have to say?
Max
Consider this video.
Do you have any idea what NIST made of the little flickering white flashes moving diagonally from the upper right to the lower left? (There is also a vertical sequence of white flashes at spandrels in the first half second, so look fast.)
What are those?
Putting aside the metal flow, note the white glow just to the left of the metal flow. Note how it is correlated in time with the white flickering flashes.
I don't expect you to see it, but the keen eye can see that the white flashes are also correlated with a sequence of those crazy "coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of an old fashion steam driven pipe organ".
Now what would explain these OBSERVATIONS?
Note that these flashes show up in other video, from different angles.
Is there any chance whatsoever that those flashes are some kind of ignition system?
What did NIST have to say?
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 03:43 PM)
Arthur,
Consider this video.
Do you have any idea what NIST made of the little flickering white flashes moving diagonally from the upper right to the lower left? (There is also a vertical sequence of white flashes at spandrels in the first half second, so look fast.)
What are those?
Putting aside the metal flow, note the white glow just to the left of the metal flow. Note how it is correlated in time with the white flickering flashes.
I don't expect you to see it, but the keen eye can see that the white flashes are also correlated with a sequence of those crazy "coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of an old fashion steam driven pipe organ".
Now what would explain these OBSERVATIONS?
Note that these flashes show up in other video, from different angles.
Is there any chance whatsoever that those flashes are some kind of ignition system?
What did NIST have to say?
Max
Lead oxide, sulfuric acid, and aluminum thermite flashes from the UPS batteries as Feso2 and aluminum, sulfate decay from heating formed buy the planes impact into the UPS batteries and yes it does work.
http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite.html
Has anyone ever thought about trying to use a low temperature producing thermite reaction to induce a high temperature thermite reaction I mean sulfur and sand will do it.
Consider this video.
Do you have any idea what NIST made of the little flickering white flashes moving diagonally from the upper right to the lower left? (There is also a vertical sequence of white flashes at spandrels in the first half second, so look fast.)
What are those?
Putting aside the metal flow, note the white glow just to the left of the metal flow. Note how it is correlated in time with the white flickering flashes.
I don't expect you to see it, but the keen eye can see that the white flashes are also correlated with a sequence of those crazy "coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of an old fashion steam driven pipe organ".
Now what would explain these OBSERVATIONS?
Note that these flashes show up in other video, from different angles.
Is there any chance whatsoever that those flashes are some kind of ignition system?
What did NIST have to say?
Max
Lead oxide, sulfuric acid, and aluminum thermite flashes from the UPS batteries as Feso2 and aluminum, sulfate decay from heating formed buy the planes impact into the UPS batteries and yes it does work.
http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite.html
Has anyone ever thought about trying to use a low temperature producing thermite reaction to induce a high temperature thermite reaction I mean sulfur and sand will do it.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 10:43 AM)
Arthur,
Consider this video.
Do you have any idea what NIST made of the little flickering white flashes moving diagonally from the upper right to the lower left? (There is also a vertical sequence of white flashes at spandrels in the first half second, so look fast.)
What are those?
I don't know what NIST analysts made of them, but it would appear that they are pieces of debris falling outside the tower.
Examples of this would be found in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 9 Fig 9-9, 9-10, 9-11, 9-12, 9-14, 9-38, and 9-62 (this last one appears to be about the same time as the video you linked to), there are many more examples.
By the way, do you have a time for when that video was taken, that would help correlate it to the NIST report?
But keep in mind, that while NIST gives a fairly detailed description of their OBSERVATIONS in 1-5A the purpose of that report is not to try to decipher the exact cause of every smoke puff or bright light that is observed.
Finally are you EVER going to answer the questions I asked?
and
and
What huge NISTian like department did this preliminary work and is keeping it secret to this day even after figuring out what they did the work for?
What MIB group borrowed a set of WTC drawings from The PA and used it to know where to go in and put in the thermite and is keeping it secret to this day even though they know they helped to kill their fellow citizens?
Where did the 2 spare 767s come from that were rigged to fly by remote control?
How many people from United/AA and Boeing would have to be in on it and keep it secret to this day, even though they now know their actions helped to kill their fellow citizens.
Where are the pilots/crew and all the people who were on the planes or did their buds at AA/United willingly send them to their death and then keep quite about it?
If you don't plan on ever answering them, just say so.
Keep in mind you these videos are only supplying evidence of bright lights and smoke puffs. This is NOT evidence of Thermite planted in the towers.
Arthur
Consider this video.
Do you have any idea what NIST made of the little flickering white flashes moving diagonally from the upper right to the lower left? (There is also a vertical sequence of white flashes at spandrels in the first half second, so look fast.)
What are those?
I don't know what NIST analysts made of them, but it would appear that they are pieces of debris falling outside the tower.
Examples of this would be found in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 9 Fig 9-9, 9-10, 9-11, 9-12, 9-14, 9-38, and 9-62 (this last one appears to be about the same time as the video you linked to), there are many more examples.
By the way, do you have a time for when that video was taken, that would help correlate it to the NIST report?
But keep in mind, that while NIST gives a fairly detailed description of their OBSERVATIONS in 1-5A the purpose of that report is not to try to decipher the exact cause of every smoke puff or bright light that is observed.
Finally are you EVER going to answer the questions I asked?
QUOTE
Why do you persist on pushing a idea for which you can produce no evidence to support?
Why do you keep asking if others have considered an idea for which there is no evidence to warrant consideration?
Why do you keep asking if others have considered an idea for which there is no evidence to warrant consideration?
and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why do you persist on pushing a idea for which you can produce no evidence to support? Why do you keep asking if others have considered an idea for which there is no evidence to warrant consideration? |
and
What huge NISTian like department did this preliminary work and is keeping it secret to this day even after figuring out what they did the work for?
What MIB group borrowed a set of WTC drawings from The PA and used it to know where to go in and put in the thermite and is keeping it secret to this day even though they know they helped to kill their fellow citizens?
Where did the 2 spare 767s come from that were rigged to fly by remote control?
How many people from United/AA and Boeing would have to be in on it and keep it secret to this day, even though they now know their actions helped to kill their fellow citizens.
Where are the pilots/crew and all the people who were on the planes or did their buds at AA/United willingly send them to their death and then keep quite about it?
If you don't plan on ever answering them, just say so.
Keep in mind you these videos are only supplying evidence of bright lights and smoke puffs. This is NOT evidence of Thermite planted in the towers.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 4 2008, 01:45 PM)
Max:
Just a few points:
1. About the visco-elastic dampers: the visco-elastic material was, I believe, a 3M butyl rubber or acrylic polymer. It's exact formulation is not important because ALL polymeric materials decompose/burn at 400 deg C, OR LESS. Hence I am sure that dampers in the fire-affected zones would have been destroyed WITHOUT the help of thermite.
I agree. Visco-elastic dampers in fire-affected zones most likely would have been destroyed WITHOUT the help of thermite.
However, that does not preclude a design that, say, calls for three floors worth of dampers to be taken out on WTC2's east face, with fires taking out a majority, and thermite burning the rest.
Accessing the perimeter box columns would indeed require cutting or drilling a hole in the office wall cover to gain access to the bolt access holes.
First, I hope you will agree that the task above is much more simple and discreet than, say, Jones' task of bolting or welding or strapping thermite cutter devices onto columns to cut them.
And I hope you'll agree that the task of accessing the bolts is much simpler than had the holes been welded shut.
For all we know, maybe only a small hole had to be drilled, and a small amount of thermite poured in with a powder-horn.
Perhaps the columns were drilled through the other faces; the steel was only 1/4" thick. (This implies the work being done from the exterior, and would mean that in the debris field, a few columns would have had small holes in the webs or flanges. A few claddings would also have holes.)
So yes there are physical obstacles to placement, but they are not insurmountable.
Similarly with the problem of being seen. It is an obstacle, but it is not insurmountable.
Perhaps it was done a little at a time, anytime individual offices were empty.
Perhaps it was done all at once during powerdown.
Again, mine is at least a zillion times easier than the other leading brand's.
Accessing the perimeter box columns would indeed require cutting or drilling a hole in the office wall cover to gain access to the bolt access holes.
First, I hope you will agree that the task above is much more simple and discreet than, say, Jones' task of bolting or welding or strapping thermite cutter devices onto columns to cut them.
And I hope you'll agree that the task of accessing the bolts is much simpler than had the holes been welded shut.
For all we know, maybe only a small hole had to be drilled, and a small amount of thermite poured in with a powder-horn.
Perhaps the columns were drilled through the other faces; the steel was only 1/4" thick. (This implies the work being done from the exterior, and would mean that in the debris field, a few columns would have had small holes in the webs or flanges. A few claddings would also have holes.)
So yes there are physical obstacles to placement, but they are not insurmountable.
Similarly with the problem of being seen. It is an obstacle, but it is not insurmountable.
Perhaps it was done a little at a time, anytime individual offices were empty.
Perhaps it was done all at once during powerdown.
Again, mine is at least a zillion times easier than the other leading brand's.
3. Thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite and yet you talk about "thermite fuses" as if these are well known devices that are foolproof in operation. Please elaborate on this and indicate exactly how these things work, where they were placed in the building, and what was the assurance that accidental pre-ignition could not occur.
First, for the record, Crazy Chainsaw argues that:
1.) Even a microscopic thermite spark can ignite a whole heaping batch of thermite;
2.) My ideas of thermite in box columns would never ever work because the shock from jet impact would ignite the thermite - sono-ignition - even for thermite planted far away from the impact zone.
For the uninitiated, planted thermite requires an ignition system. There are several ways to ignite thermite, all of them cumbersome from a demolition standpoint. So what was the ignition system?
This video shows flickering white flashes moving from the upper right to the lower left. The phenomena to the left are claimed to be thermite related. Could the white flashes be an ignition system?
The flashes first made me think of shock-tube with non-electric detonators. But the flashes are too slow for HMX or other HE, and non-electric detonators wouldn't ignite the thermite.
Then I reasoned that thermite ignites thermite, so perhaps flashes were from something like shock-tube, but dusted with thermite rather than HE (hence, "thermite-dusted shock-tube"). This seems to be a better fit, as no intermediate mechanism would be needed between the tubing and the planted thermite, because a thermite spark carried by the tube would suffice! Plus, the speed of the white flashes are more consonant with thermite than with HE. Third, tails of white "smoke" follow the flashes.
Now I use the term "thermite fuse", because thermite doesn't burn fast enough to create a true shock front. Furthermore, shock-tube implies the tube only be dusted. There is no reason the tubing couldn't have been packed with thermite.
Here's another video. Seconds 4 -16 of this video (also see 4:38 for excellent slow-motion, stabilized version of seconds 4 -16) show "smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs" moving from right to left, followed by a slow, pronounced white flash emerging from the region of the metal flow, claimed to be from thermite. These phenomena are correlated!
Are these not consistent with thermite fuse igniting planted thermite?
You are correct that my thermite fuse is an unproven concept.
Do you think it is impossible?
Note that flashes are visible where the cladding is missing. This suggests that the thermite fuse has hidden in the gaps between the steel and the cladding.
Neu-Fonze said some very important things here, so allow me to reiterate them.
1.) Claims that MAX-MIHOP lacks evidence are missing the point that thermite residue would be very difficult to detect in a rubble pile consisting of iron and aluminum from the aircraft debris and the building's pulverized construction materials.
Remember, I claim thermite was chosen exactly because thermite residue tests are inconclusive. The use of thermite not only generate heat, it generated ambiguity. Ambiguity is a cloaking device. Thermite was used to cloak the controlled demolitions of the WTC towers.
2.) Neu-Fonze doubts that anyone thought to look INSIDE an exterior column. I doubt it also. That is just not the mindset people would be in.
3.) Evidence of extreme heating/scorching of exterior columns [from thermite placed inside the columns] would probably have been attributed to the fires, and not to planted incendiaries.
One almost gets the sense that no one thought to consider arson, despite that the Towers collapsed from criminally-set fires.
Oops.
Max
Just a few points:
1. About the visco-elastic dampers: the visco-elastic material was, I believe, a 3M butyl rubber or acrylic polymer. It's exact formulation is not important because ALL polymeric materials decompose/burn at 400 deg C, OR LESS. Hence I am sure that dampers in the fire-affected zones would have been destroyed WITHOUT the help of thermite.
I agree. Visco-elastic dampers in fire-affected zones most likely would have been destroyed WITHOUT the help of thermite.
However, that does not preclude a design that, say, calls for three floors worth of dampers to be taken out on WTC2's east face, with fires taking out a majority, and thermite burning the rest.
QUOTE
2. I am having difficulty understanding how thermite could have been poured into the exterior columns without cutting a hole in the office wall covering to expose the bolt access holes. Thus, while placing thermite at other locations might have been relatively simple, the placement of thermite in the vitally important exterior columns would have been a major problem. Max, how many offices would have had some shady "maintenance guy" come and carry out this task without anyone asking a few questions?
Accessing the perimeter box columns would indeed require cutting or drilling a hole in the office wall cover to gain access to the bolt access holes.
First, I hope you will agree that the task above is much more simple and discreet than, say, Jones' task of bolting or welding or strapping thermite cutter devices onto columns to cut them.
And I hope you'll agree that the task of accessing the bolts is much simpler than had the holes been welded shut.
For all we know, maybe only a small hole had to be drilled, and a small amount of thermite poured in with a powder-horn.
Perhaps the columns were drilled through the other faces; the steel was only 1/4" thick. (This implies the work being done from the exterior, and would mean that in the debris field, a few columns would have had small holes in the webs or flanges. A few claddings would also have holes.)
So yes there are physical obstacles to placement, but they are not insurmountable.
Similarly with the problem of being seen. It is an obstacle, but it is not insurmountable.
Perhaps it was done a little at a time, anytime individual offices were empty.
Perhaps it was done all at once during powerdown.
Again, mine is at least a zillion times easier than the other leading brand's.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2. I am having difficulty understanding how thermite could have been poured into the exterior columns without cutting a hole in the office wall covering to expose the bolt access holes. Thus, while placing thermite at other locations might have been relatively simple, the placement of thermite in the vitally important exterior columns would have been a major problem. Max, how many offices would have had some shady "maintenance guy" come and carry out this task without anyone asking a few questions? |
Accessing the perimeter box columns would indeed require cutting or drilling a hole in the office wall cover to gain access to the bolt access holes.
First, I hope you will agree that the task above is much more simple and discreet than, say, Jones' task of bolting or welding or strapping thermite cutter devices onto columns to cut them.
And I hope you'll agree that the task of accessing the bolts is much simpler than had the holes been welded shut.
For all we know, maybe only a small hole had to be drilled, and a small amount of thermite poured in with a powder-horn.
Perhaps the columns were drilled through the other faces; the steel was only 1/4" thick. (This implies the work being done from the exterior, and would mean that in the debris field, a few columns would have had small holes in the webs or flanges. A few claddings would also have holes.)
So yes there are physical obstacles to placement, but they are not insurmountable.
Similarly with the problem of being seen. It is an obstacle, but it is not insurmountable.
Perhaps it was done a little at a time, anytime individual offices were empty.
Perhaps it was done all at once during powerdown.
Again, mine is at least a zillion times easier than the other leading brand's.
3. Thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite and yet you talk about "thermite fuses" as if these are well known devices that are foolproof in operation. Please elaborate on this and indicate exactly how these things work, where they were placed in the building, and what was the assurance that accidental pre-ignition could not occur.
First, for the record, Crazy Chainsaw argues that:
1.) Even a microscopic thermite spark can ignite a whole heaping batch of thermite;
2.) My ideas of thermite in box columns would never ever work because the shock from jet impact would ignite the thermite - sono-ignition - even for thermite planted far away from the impact zone.
For the uninitiated, planted thermite requires an ignition system. There are several ways to ignite thermite, all of them cumbersome from a demolition standpoint. So what was the ignition system?
This video shows flickering white flashes moving from the upper right to the lower left. The phenomena to the left are claimed to be thermite related. Could the white flashes be an ignition system?
The flashes first made me think of shock-tube with non-electric detonators. But the flashes are too slow for HMX or other HE, and non-electric detonators wouldn't ignite the thermite.
Then I reasoned that thermite ignites thermite, so perhaps flashes were from something like shock-tube, but dusted with thermite rather than HE (hence, "thermite-dusted shock-tube"). This seems to be a better fit, as no intermediate mechanism would be needed between the tubing and the planted thermite, because a thermite spark carried by the tube would suffice! Plus, the speed of the white flashes are more consonant with thermite than with HE. Third, tails of white "smoke" follow the flashes.
Now I use the term "thermite fuse", because thermite doesn't burn fast enough to create a true shock front. Furthermore, shock-tube implies the tube only be dusted. There is no reason the tubing couldn't have been packed with thermite.
Here's another video. Seconds 4 -16 of this video (also see 4:38 for excellent slow-motion, stabilized version of seconds 4 -16) show "smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs" moving from right to left, followed by a slow, pronounced white flash emerging from the region of the metal flow, claimed to be from thermite. These phenomena are correlated!
Are these not consistent with thermite fuse igniting planted thermite?
You are correct that my thermite fuse is an unproven concept.
Do you think it is impossible?
Note that flashes are visible where the cladding is missing. This suggests that the thermite fuse has hidden in the gaps between the steel and the cladding.
QUOTE
4. I should finally add, (in your favour), that the question of the alleged lack of evidence for your theory is surely missing the point that thermite residues would be very difficult to detect in a rubble pile consisting of iron and aluminum from the aircraft debris and the building's pulverized construction materials. I also doubt that anyone thought to look INSIDE an exterior column. In any case, evidence of extreme heating/scorching of exterior columns would probably have been attributed to the fires.
Neu-Fonze said some very important things here, so allow me to reiterate them.
1.) Claims that MAX-MIHOP lacks evidence are missing the point that thermite residue would be very difficult to detect in a rubble pile consisting of iron and aluminum from the aircraft debris and the building's pulverized construction materials.
Remember, I claim thermite was chosen exactly because thermite residue tests are inconclusive. The use of thermite not only generate heat, it generated ambiguity. Ambiguity is a cloaking device. Thermite was used to cloak the controlled demolitions of the WTC towers.
2.) Neu-Fonze doubts that anyone thought to look INSIDE an exterior column. I doubt it also. That is just not the mindset people would be in.
3.) Evidence of extreme heating/scorching of exterior columns [from thermite placed inside the columns] would probably have been attributed to the fires, and not to planted incendiaries.
One almost gets the sense that no one thought to consider arson, despite that the Towers collapsed from criminally-set fires.
Oops.
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 03:43 PM)
Consider this video.
Nice stabilization. Did you do that, Max?
Nice stabilization. Did you do that, Max?
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Jan 4 2008, 05:27 PM)
Nice stabilization. Did you do that, Max?
No I didn't. But it sure is helpful!
No I didn't. But it sure is helpful!
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 05:33 PM)
No I didn't. But it sure is helpful!
Yes, it is. And really good, too. It's making me rethink the idea of using a stabilizer on part of the video I'm working with (not for data portions, just the shake). What's more interesting is to consider what it takes to minimize the error in position of successive frames. It reminds me of some code I wrote lately; ever re-inventing the wheel, I guess.
Yes, it is. And really good, too. It's making me rethink the idea of using a stabilizer on part of the video I'm working with (not for data portions, just the shake). What's more interesting is to consider what it takes to minimize the error in position of successive frames. It reminds me of some code I wrote lately; ever re-inventing the wheel, I guess.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2008, 05:17 PM)
I don't know what NIST analysts made of them, but it would appear that they are pieces of debris falling outside the tower.
Examples of this would be found in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 9 Fig 9-9, 9-10, 9-11, 9-12, 9-14, 9-38, and 9-62 (this last one appears to be about the same time as the video you linked to), there are many more examples.
By the way, do you have a time for when that video was taken, that would help correlate it to the NIST report?
But keep in mind, that while NIST gives a fairly detailed description of their OBSERVATIONS in 1-5A the purpose of that report is not to try to decipher the exact cause of every smoke puff or bright light that is observed.
Finally are you EVER going to answer the questions I asked?
and
If you don't plan on ever answering them, just say so.
Keep in mind you these videos are only supplying evidence of bright lights and smoke puffs. This is NOT evidence of Thermite planted in the towers.
Arthur
Arthur,
Given that we see flowing metal, this puts the video in the last seven minutes.
Note that the video is actually two segments spliced together.
I bet that is we saw the real, complete, least-compressed video, we'd be shocked at how transparent all of this really is. By the way, why doesn't NIST share some of its wealth and provide the videos?
Arthur, I know NIST didn't set out to explain every little puff and flash - stop being silly.
The topic here is that NIST in 15A9C describes numerous anomalous phenomena, and says they are correlated. These phenomena are located right where the towers collapse, in both time and space.
My model is seeking to provide a logical explanation (which NIST did not provide) for these very important observations. So it's not about explaining every little puff. It's about providing an integrated model that explains the collapse initiation of the towers, while best fitting observations.
I'll answer your questions in a different post.
Max
Examples of this would be found in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 9 Fig 9-9, 9-10, 9-11, 9-12, 9-14, 9-38, and 9-62 (this last one appears to be about the same time as the video you linked to), there are many more examples.
By the way, do you have a time for when that video was taken, that would help correlate it to the NIST report?
But keep in mind, that while NIST gives a fairly detailed description of their OBSERVATIONS in 1-5A the purpose of that report is not to try to decipher the exact cause of every smoke puff or bright light that is observed.
Finally are you EVER going to answer the questions I asked?
and
If you don't plan on ever answering them, just say so.
Keep in mind you these videos are only supplying evidence of bright lights and smoke puffs. This is NOT evidence of Thermite planted in the towers.
Arthur
Arthur,
Given that we see flowing metal, this puts the video in the last seven minutes.
Note that the video is actually two segments spliced together.
I bet that is we saw the real, complete, least-compressed video, we'd be shocked at how transparent all of this really is. By the way, why doesn't NIST share some of its wealth and provide the videos?
Arthur, I know NIST didn't set out to explain every little puff and flash - stop being silly.
The topic here is that NIST in 15A9C describes numerous anomalous phenomena, and says they are correlated. These phenomena are located right where the towers collapse, in both time and space.
My model is seeking to provide a logical explanation (which NIST did not provide) for these very important observations. So it's not about explaining every little puff. It's about providing an integrated model that explains the collapse initiation of the towers, while best fitting observations.
I'll answer your questions in a different post.
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 10:27 AM)
2.) Neu-Fonze doubts that anyone thought to look INSIDE an exterior column. I doubt it also. That is just not the mindset people would be in.
I disagree. The engineers looking thorough the steel pile would certainly have been interested in the question:
Where the h**l are the bolts?
I disagree. The engineers looking thorough the steel pile would certainly have been interested in the question:
Where the h**l are the bolts?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 4 2008, 05:53 PM)
Where the h**l are the bolts?
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 05:28 PM)
As to beams being ejected horizontally (or even vertically), I am puzzled why so many have trouble with this. First off, note that many people look at the width of the ejected debris,
Max
Max, of course if an apple has a horizontal component and the tree is high then the apple will fall far away, but I computed this out once, I can't find the post and copy paste a backup I have
----
The famous beam ejected in wfc3, I estimated roughly 160 meter from the corner of wtc1 and on a height of 75 meter from the ground. If we plot the horizontal speed required for that as function of the floor we get
http://i13.tinypic.com/61ntaud.gif
This means if it originates from the impact zone, about floor 96 then it would have a speed about 20 m/s which is more than the demolition wave and it needs more
speed when it originates from a lower floor, of course when we go lower and lower it goes asymptotically to infinity. The picture shows that the beam originates from
the zone 13-52 stories under the collapse zone but also that the speed is almost the collapse speed.
----
I can't remember but the Green line is the speed as function of the amount of collapsed floors assuming g=(2/3)a and the red line is the required speed.
Max
Max, of course if an apple has a horizontal component and the tree is high then the apple will fall far away, but I computed this out once, I can't find the post and copy paste a backup I have
----
The famous beam ejected in wfc3, I estimated roughly 160 meter from the corner of wtc1 and on a height of 75 meter from the ground. If we plot the horizontal speed required for that as function of the floor we get
http://i13.tinypic.com/61ntaud.gif
This means if it originates from the impact zone, about floor 96 then it would have a speed about 20 m/s which is more than the demolition wave and it needs more
speed when it originates from a lower floor, of course when we go lower and lower it goes asymptotically to infinity. The picture shows that the beam originates from
the zone 13-52 stories under the collapse zone but also that the speed is almost the collapse speed.
----
I can't remember but the Green line is the speed as function of the amount of collapsed floors assuming g=(2/3)a and the red line is the required speed.
Max Photon --- "... I can only recommend to you the counsel of the good Mr. Twain:
'There is something worse than ignorance, and that’s knowing what ain’t so.'”
Remotely-controlled Boeing 767s --- 100,000,000,000:1 chance: decisively disconfirmed.
'There is something worse than ignorance, and that’s knowing what ain’t so.'”
Remotely-controlled Boeing 767s --- 100,000,000,000:1 chance: decisively disconfirmed.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 4 2008, 06:05 PM)
The famous beam ejected in wfc3, I estimated roughly 160 meter from the corner of wtc1 and on a height of 75 meter from the ground. If we plot the horizontal speed required for that as function of the floor we get
http://i13.tinypic.com/61ntaud.gif
This means if it originates from the impact zone, about floor 96 then it would have a speed about 20 m/s which is more than the demolition wave and it needs more
speed when it originates from a lower floor, of course when we go lower and lower it goes asymptotically to infinity. The picture shows that the beam originates from
the zone 13-52 stories under the collapse zone but also that the speed is almost the collapse speed.
Very interesting work.
http://i13.tinypic.com/61ntaud.gif
This means if it originates from the impact zone, about floor 96 then it would have a speed about 20 m/s which is more than the demolition wave and it needs more
speed when it originates from a lower floor, of course when we go lower and lower it goes asymptotically to infinity. The picture shows that the beam originates from
the zone 13-52 stories under the collapse zone but also that the speed is almost the collapse speed.
Very interesting work.
Max Photon --- "As William James said: 'A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all.'”
Why would I quote that to you?
Why would I quote that to you?
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 12:46 PM)
My model is seeking to provide a logical explanation (which NIST did not provide) for these very important observations. So it's not about explaining every little puff. It's about providing an integrated model that explains the collapse initiation of the towers, while best fitting observations.
I've YET to see anything that would be considered an "important observation" that is not consistent with the NIST explanation.
Please explain which observation you have that is somehow ONLY consistent with Thermite and NOT consistent with the NIST plane impact & fire theory.
As far as your model goes, you have to provide a REASON for suspecting Thermite was planted in the towers.
A valid REASON would be some EVIDENCE that Thermite was used.
You know like photos of thermite damaged steel at the places you believe thermite was planted at.
Evidence of smoke and light coming from the burning towers though is NOT evidence of Thermite.
Arthur
I've YET to see anything that would be considered an "important observation" that is not consistent with the NIST explanation.
Please explain which observation you have that is somehow ONLY consistent with Thermite and NOT consistent with the NIST plane impact & fire theory.
As far as your model goes, you have to provide a REASON for suspecting Thermite was planted in the towers.
A valid REASON would be some EVIDENCE that Thermite was used.
You know like photos of thermite damaged steel at the places you believe thermite was planted at.
Evidence of smoke and light coming from the burning towers though is NOT evidence of Thermite.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 4 2008, 11:05 AM)
This means if it originates from the impact zone, about floor 96 then it would have a speed about 20 m/s which is more than the demolition wave ...
Yes. The crushing front is vertical, so another process is required to produce a horizontal speed. One possibility is the pressure of the crushed materials.
Another is simply that the appropriate part of the exterior wall simply fell over. In this case you will want to do a different analysis. Start by assuming a rigid section of wall, hinged at various levels above the ground.
Yes. The crushing front is vertical, so another process is required to produce a horizontal speed. One possibility is the pressure of the crushed materials.
Another is simply that the appropriate part of the exterior wall simply fell over. In this case you will want to do a different analysis. Start by assuming a rigid section of wall, hinged at various levels above the ground.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 4 2008, 06:46 PM)
Yes. The crushing front is vertical, so another process is required to produce a horizontal speed. One possibility is the pressure of the crushed materials.
Another is simply that the appropriate part of the exterior wall simply fell over. In this case you will want to do a different analysis. Start by assuming a rigid section of wall, hinged at various levels above the ground.
I can place a spoon face up on the edge of a table, and using a vertical motion, hit the eating end of the spoon with the edge of my hand, and lauch the spoon clear across the room.
(With food simulates intact SFRM.)
Max
Another is simply that the appropriate part of the exterior wall simply fell over. In this case you will want to do a different analysis. Start by assuming a rigid section of wall, hinged at various levels above the ground.
I can place a spoon face up on the edge of a table, and using a vertical motion, hit the eating end of the spoon with the edge of my hand, and lauch the spoon clear across the room.
(With food simulates intact SFRM.)
Max
Max Photon
I have yet to see a single VIDEO which support even a single beam being ejected in a vertical direction. Even those beams which had a significant horizontal displacement are obviously hinged sections of the outer frames simply falling over until their hinges broke. The vast majority of all the debris fell in a vertical direction. It is these facts that go the farthest to precluding the use of explosives.
In addition, the bolted flanges were scrutinized closely to determine failure modes of the bolts. No competent engineer could have missed the obvious signs of thermite, so no thermite was used, it's just that simple. That, alone, falsifies your speculations, it just ain't so.
Grumpy
QUOTE
As to beams being ejected horizontally (or even vertically), I am puzzled why so many have trouble with this. First off, note that many people look at the width of the ejected debris,
I have yet to see a single VIDEO which support even a single beam being ejected in a vertical direction. Even those beams which had a significant horizontal displacement are obviously hinged sections of the outer frames simply falling over until their hinges broke. The vast majority of all the debris fell in a vertical direction. It is these facts that go the farthest to precluding the use of explosives.
In addition, the bolted flanges were scrutinized closely to determine failure modes of the bolts. No competent engineer could have missed the obvious signs of thermite, so no thermite was used, it's just that simple. That, alone, falsifies your speculations, it just ain't so.
Grumpy
Arthur asked: (in italics)
Why do you persist on pushing a idea for which you can produce no evidence to support?
Your construct is nonsensical. MAX-MIHOP's evidence is the same as NIST's evidence. Furthermore, I can't produce evidence; the events produced the evidence. Our jobs as researchers is to provide models with the greatest evidentiary harmony with the evidence. NIST's collapse initiation mechanism is one metaphor. MAX-MIHOP is another. I say mine is more harmonious than NIST's.
Another way of putting it is that MAX-MIHOP is simply a different interpretation of the NIST's Reports.
That aside, I persist because what initiated the collapse of the WTC towers is the most important scientific question on earth.
I am persistent because I am completely unsatisfied that the perfectly reasonable question - Was it an inside job? - was adequately addressed.
I am persistent because exposing 911 might prevent Iran from getting nuked.
I am persistent because if people see the trick of cloaking synthetic terror with drills, it becomes much less likely that more synthetic terror will be attempted.
I am persistent because when I became a citizen of the US, I swore to defend the US Constitution.
I am persistent because I believe my model, while in its early stages, is worthy of consideration - real consideration - by real experts with open minds.
(Now if we could just find some real experts with open minds.)
Why do you keep asking if others have considered an idea for which there is no evidence to warrant consideration?
Because no one seems to be aware of - let alone have researched - whether the WTCs collapsed because of arson.
Dr. Steven Jones is the only person I am aware of who articulated the glaring anomaly that no arson investigation was conducted when there was a plausible fit between thermite and the evidence.
What huge NISTian like department did this preliminary work and is keeping it secret to this day even after figuring out what they did the work for?
I don't know, but almost certainly the tasks would have been parceled out to the private sector. (Synthetic terror = privatized terror.)
What MIB group borrowed a set of WTC drawings from The PA and used it to know where to go in and put in the thermite and is keeping it secret to this day even though they know they helped to kill their fellow citizens?
I don't know.
Perhaps this article provides some clues...
(excerpt)
There was a 1989 meeting and the folks at the architectural firm [Emory Roth, the project architect that took over after the design architects completed the conceptual drawings] that had their office, records, plans and specs seized - were told that the $5.6 billion "take it down, rebuild it" project was cancelled and in about "10-12 years" they would "blow it up and start over".
Where did the 2 spare 767s come from that were rigged to fly by remote control?
I don't know.
How many people from United/AA and Boeing would have to be in on it and keep it secret to this day, even though they now know their actions helped to kill their fellow citizens[?]
I don't know.
Where are the pilots/crew and all the people who were on the planes or did their buds at AA/United willingly send them to their death and then keep quite about it?
I don't know.
Arthur, if I missed any questions in other posts, simply ask again.
Max
Why do you persist on pushing a idea for which you can produce no evidence to support?
Your construct is nonsensical. MAX-MIHOP's evidence is the same as NIST's evidence. Furthermore, I can't produce evidence; the events produced the evidence. Our jobs as researchers is to provide models with the greatest evidentiary harmony with the evidence. NIST's collapse initiation mechanism is one metaphor. MAX-MIHOP is another. I say mine is more harmonious than NIST's.
Another way of putting it is that MAX-MIHOP is simply a different interpretation of the NIST's Reports.
That aside, I persist because what initiated the collapse of the WTC towers is the most important scientific question on earth.
I am persistent because I am completely unsatisfied that the perfectly reasonable question - Was it an inside job? - was adequately addressed.
I am persistent because exposing 911 might prevent Iran from getting nuked.
I am persistent because if people see the trick of cloaking synthetic terror with drills, it becomes much less likely that more synthetic terror will be attempted.
I am persistent because when I became a citizen of the US, I swore to defend the US Constitution.
I am persistent because I believe my model, while in its early stages, is worthy of consideration - real consideration - by real experts with open minds.
(Now if we could just find some real experts with open minds.)
Why do you keep asking if others have considered an idea for which there is no evidence to warrant consideration?
Because no one seems to be aware of - let alone have researched - whether the WTCs collapsed because of arson.
Dr. Steven Jones is the only person I am aware of who articulated the glaring anomaly that no arson investigation was conducted when there was a plausible fit between thermite and the evidence.
What huge NISTian like department did this preliminary work and is keeping it secret to this day even after figuring out what they did the work for?
I don't know, but almost certainly the tasks would have been parceled out to the private sector. (Synthetic terror = privatized terror.)
What MIB group borrowed a set of WTC drawings from The PA and used it to know where to go in and put in the thermite and is keeping it secret to this day even though they know they helped to kill their fellow citizens?
I don't know.
Perhaps this article provides some clues...
(excerpt)
There was a 1989 meeting and the folks at the architectural firm [Emory Roth, the project architect that took over after the design architects completed the conceptual drawings] that had their office, records, plans and specs seized - were told that the $5.6 billion "take it down, rebuild it" project was cancelled and in about "10-12 years" they would "blow it up and start over".
Where did the 2 spare 767s come from that were rigged to fly by remote control?
I don't know.
How many people from United/AA and Boeing would have to be in on it and keep it secret to this day, even though they now know their actions helped to kill their fellow citizens[?]
I don't know.
Where are the pilots/crew and all the people who were on the planes or did their buds at AA/United willingly send them to their death and then keep quite about it?
I don't know.
Arthur, if I missed any questions in other posts, simply ask again.
Max
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 4 2008, 06:35 PM)
Max Photon --- "As William James said: 'A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all.'”
What a great place to hide something different.
Max Twain
What a great place to hide something different.
Max Twain
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 02:29 PM)
Arthur asked: (in italics)
Why do you persist on pushing a idea for which you can produce no evidence to support?
Your construct is nonsensical. MAX-MIHOP's evidence is the same as NIST's evidence. Furthermore, I can't produce evidence; the events produced the evidence. Our jobs as researchers is to provide models with the greatest evidentiary harmony with the evidence. NIST's collapse initiation mechanism is one metaphor. MAX-MIHOP is another. I say mine is more harmonious than NIST's.
Another way of putting it is that MAX-MIHOP is simply a different interpretation of the NIST's Reports.
No Max its not.
Unlike NIST, you INSERT something into the model for which you have NO EVIDENCE.
Further, I can assure you that the demise of the towers IS NOT the most important scientific question on earth.
That's just SILLY.
As far as "was it an inside job" again, NO EVIDENCE that it was.
As far as "might prevent Iran from getting nuked.",
So now Max is going to SAVE THE WORLD????
One heck of an ego you got there Max.
As to your Rense article
Total HORSE PUCKY
Blah, Blah, Blah (more of Max asserting that he can see what no one else can)
Sheesh.
Get help Max
Arthur
Why do you persist on pushing a idea for which you can produce no evidence to support?
Your construct is nonsensical. MAX-MIHOP's evidence is the same as NIST's evidence. Furthermore, I can't produce evidence; the events produced the evidence. Our jobs as researchers is to provide models with the greatest evidentiary harmony with the evidence. NIST's collapse initiation mechanism is one metaphor. MAX-MIHOP is another. I say mine is more harmonious than NIST's.
Another way of putting it is that MAX-MIHOP is simply a different interpretation of the NIST's Reports.
No Max its not.
Unlike NIST, you INSERT something into the model for which you have NO EVIDENCE.
Further, I can assure you that the demise of the towers IS NOT the most important scientific question on earth.
That's just SILLY.
As far as "was it an inside job" again, NO EVIDENCE that it was.
As far as "might prevent Iran from getting nuked.",
So now Max is going to SAVE THE WORLD????
One heck of an ego you got there Max.
As to your Rense article
QUOTE
In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went.
Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so.
The exterior skin of the building - in being aluminum and connected directly to the super structure - was making the building weaker every day.
Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so.
The exterior skin of the building - in being aluminum and connected directly to the super structure - was making the building weaker every day.
Total HORSE PUCKY
Blah, Blah, Blah (more of Max asserting that he can see what no one else can)
Sheesh.
Get help Max
Arthur
Well people it's clear Arthur approached "who done it" with an open mind.
That's the stuff of great minds.
That's the stuff of great minds.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 02:29 PM)
I am persistent because when I became a citizen of the US, I swore to defend the US Constitution.
But Max, you assume that unlike you, those people at NIST, Boeing, UA, AA, FAA, etc etc not only are not interested in defending the US Consititution, but are WILLING to remain silent about the killing of thousands of their countrymen (and even co-workers).
What is the RATIONAL basis for this belief?
Arthur
But Max, you assume that unlike you, those people at NIST, Boeing, UA, AA, FAA, etc etc not only are not interested in defending the US Consititution, but are WILLING to remain silent about the killing of thousands of their countrymen (and even co-workers).
What is the RATIONAL basis for this belief?
Arthur
Arthur / David,
It seems you are both of the view that:
1.) No one considered demolition by arson/heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets).
2.) No one considered demolition by arson/heat-weakening because:
a.) There is zero evidence to support collapse initiation by arson;
b.) The idea is physically or practically impossible;
c.) The idea is stupid.
3.) The white flashes in the video are insignificant.
Perhaps each could answer whether he feels I am summarizing accurately.
Max
It seems you are both of the view that:
1.) No one considered demolition by arson/heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets).
2.) No one considered demolition by arson/heat-weakening because:
a.) There is zero evidence to support collapse initiation by arson;
b.) The idea is physically or practically impossible;
c.) The idea is stupid.
3.) The white flashes in the video are insignificant.
Perhaps each could answer whether he feels I am summarizing accurately.
Max
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2008, 08:15 PM)
But Max, you assume that unlike you, those people at NIST, Boeing, UA, AA, FAA, etc etc not only are not interested in defending the US Consititution, but are WILLING to remain silent about the killing of thousands of their countrymen (and even co-workers).
What is the RATIONAL basis for this belief?
Arthur
The most rational basis is that the people you mentioned - while willing to defend the Constitution - are so patriotic that they can't vsualize an inside job - it is too incredible. 911 synthetic terror is being cloaked by incredulity. (Incredible, isn't it.)
So it is not that these people are willing to remain silent. These people are silent only because they are oblivious. (You seem oblivious to your oblivion.)
That everyone is oblivious to the 911 synthetic terror in no way precludes them from becoming aware. They just need to see the light ; )
To kill the magic illusion, reveal the trick.
I am trying to reveal the trick.
...oh, and save the world from oblivion.
911-God
What is the RATIONAL basis for this belief?
Arthur
The most rational basis is that the people you mentioned - while willing to defend the Constitution - are so patriotic that they can't vsualize an inside job - it is too incredible. 911 synthetic terror is being cloaked by incredulity. (Incredible, isn't it.)
So it is not that these people are willing to remain silent. These people are silent only because they are oblivious. (You seem oblivious to your oblivion.)
That everyone is oblivious to the 911 synthetic terror in no way precludes them from becoming aware. They just need to see the light ; )
To kill the magic illusion, reveal the trick.
I am trying to reveal the trick.
...oh, and save the world from oblivion.
911-God
QUOTE (Max Photon to adoucette+Jan 4 2008, 08:07 PM)
Well people it's clear Arthur approached "who done it" with an open mind.
That's the stuff of great minds.
Hi Max Photon! Pleased to make your acquaintence.
Speaking of open minds, have you had time to ponder the implications of my last post for your thermite CD speculations?
If not, then please allow me to point some out for your further consideration....
If the thermite 'charge' poured into the holes was so small as your speculations depend on, and for its residue/effects to not be immediately apparent to someone wondering what happened to the bolts etc), then the large surface area and smallness of charge would not produce enough TOTAL and SUATAINED heating to be effective....simply because any heat FIRST goes to melting the 'charge' material itself (so that the reaction can continue to completion for all the charge), and THEN any heat transferred during the 'charge material' cooling would go SO QUICKLY to the LARGE STEEL MASS (conduction) and SURROUNDING AIR (radiation/convection) that the 'charge' materials would effectively be WELDED ONTO any steel surfaces....and NOT have sufficient total/fast heating effect to do anything in the short time and little total heat produced from such small 'thermite' charges.
Also problematic for your speculated scenario is the fact that any such thermite charge would have to affect bolts/welds IN THE FIRMLY CLOSED INTERSTICES BETWEEN THE BOLT NUT/HEAD and/or any WELD INTERIOR MASS. Otherwise, as I said, the chatge materials merely ADD TO bolt/weld MASS/STRENGTH...which is the OPPOSITE of what you want.
And if the charge was to be large/sustained enough to do as you want, then the CHARGE QUANTITIES/EFFECTS would be only TOO obvious at a glance when the column ends/connections were OBSERVED and PHOTOGRAPHED by practically every man and his dog for WEEKS/MONTHS during rubble fires AND cleanup.
.
How's that for your open mind to consider, Max Photon?
Rushed again. Sorry I can't stay for a proper chat, MP.
Cheers to you and all!
RC.
That's the stuff of great minds.
Hi Max Photon! Pleased to make your acquaintence.
Speaking of open minds, have you had time to ponder the implications of my last post for your thermite CD speculations?
If not, then please allow me to point some out for your further consideration....
If the thermite 'charge' poured into the holes was so small as your speculations depend on, and for its residue/effects to not be immediately apparent to someone wondering what happened to the bolts etc), then the large surface area and smallness of charge would not produce enough TOTAL and SUATAINED heating to be effective....simply because any heat FIRST goes to melting the 'charge' material itself (so that the reaction can continue to completion for all the charge), and THEN any heat transferred during the 'charge material' cooling would go SO QUICKLY to the LARGE STEEL MASS (conduction) and SURROUNDING AIR (radiation/convection) that the 'charge' materials would effectively be WELDED ONTO any steel surfaces....and NOT have sufficient total/fast heating effect to do anything in the short time and little total heat produced from such small 'thermite' charges.
Also problematic for your speculated scenario is the fact that any such thermite charge would have to affect bolts/welds IN THE FIRMLY CLOSED INTERSTICES BETWEEN THE BOLT NUT/HEAD and/or any WELD INTERIOR MASS. Otherwise, as I said, the chatge materials merely ADD TO bolt/weld MASS/STRENGTH...which is the OPPOSITE of what you want.
And if the charge was to be large/sustained enough to do as you want, then the CHARGE QUANTITIES/EFFECTS would be only TOO obvious at a glance when the column ends/connections were OBSERVED and PHOTOGRAPHED by practically every man and his dog for WEEKS/MONTHS during rubble fires AND cleanup.
.
How's that for your open mind to consider, Max Photon?
Rushed again. Sorry I can't stay for a proper chat, MP.
Cheers to you and all!
RC.
Max Pain
1.) No one considered demolition by arson/heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets).
2.) No one considered demolition by arson/heat-weakening because:
a.) There is zero evidence to support collapse initiation by arson;
b.) The idea is physically or practically impossible;
c.) The idea is stupid.
3.) The white flashes in the video are insignificant.
Perhaps each could answer whether he feels I am summarizing accurately.
Max
1) For the same reason nobody seriously considered a nuke, absolutely no indication of need or presence.
2) D All of the above.
3) The white flashes could not be(and are still not) identified, and could have come from multiple sources.
1) For the same reason nobody seriously considered a nuke, absolutely no indication of need or presence.
2) D All of the above.
3) The white flashes could not be(and are still not) identified, and could have come from multiple sources.
The most rational basis is that the people you mentioned - while willing to defend the Constitution - are so patriotic that they can't vsualize an inside job - it is too incredible. 911 synthetic terror is being cloaked by incredulity. (Incredible, isn't it.)
You've provided zero evidence that it WAS an inside job, real science requires valid, positive evidence, not "just so" fairy tales.
But there was no magic trick, it happened exactly as it appeared to.
Plane hits building, building fall down. It happened twice on that day, so it would seem it always works, provided you have a big enough plane.
Grumpy
Hi Max Photon! Pleased to make your acquaintence.
Speaking of open minds, have you had time to ponder the implications of my last post for your thermite CD speculations?
If not, then please allow me to point some out for your further consideration....
If the thermite 'charge' poured into the holes was so small as your speculations depend on, and for its residue/effects to not be immediately apparent to someone wondering what happened to the bolts etc), then the large surface area and smallness of charge would not produce enough TOTAL and SUATAINED heating to be effective....simply because any heat FIRST goes to melting the 'charge' material itself (so that the reaction can continue to completion for all the charge), and THEN any heat transferred during the 'charge material' cooling would go SO QUICKLY to the LARGE STEEL MASS (conduction) and SURROUNDING AIR (radiation/convection) that the 'charge' materials would effectively be WELDED ONTO any steel surfaces....and NOT have sufficient total/fast heating effect to do anything in the short time and little total heat produced from such small 'thermite' charges.
Also problematic for your speculated scenario is the fact that any such thermite charge would have to affect bolts/welds IN THE FIRMLY CLOSED INTERSTICES BETWEEN THE BOLT NUT/HEAD and/or any WELD INTERIOR MASS. Otherwise, as I said, the chatge materials merely ADD TO bolt/weld MASS/STRENGTH...which is the OPPOSITE of what you want.
And if the charge was to be large/sustained enough to do as you want, then the CHARGE QUANTITIES/EFFECTS would be only TOO obvious at a glance when the column ends/connections were OBSERVED and PHOTOGRAPHED by practically every man and his dog for WEEKS/MONTHS during rubble fires AND cleanup.
.
How's that for your open mind to consider, Max Photon?
Rushed again. Sorry I can't stay for a proper chat, MP.
Cheers to you and all!
RC.
Quick reality check on RealityCheck...
If perimeter columns are subjected to a bending moment, say by floors that sagged and cooled, and - simultaneously - thermite heated the perimeter column splice bolts,
The moment capacity of the A325 bolts would:
a.) increase
b.) decrease
resulting in a:
a.) stronger column splice
b.) weaker column splice
more prone to:
a.) not failing
b.) failing
Max
QUOTE
1.) No one considered demolition by arson/heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets).
2.) No one considered demolition by arson/heat-weakening because:
a.) There is zero evidence to support collapse initiation by arson;
b.) The idea is physically or practically impossible;
c.) The idea is stupid.
3.) The white flashes in the video are insignificant.
Perhaps each could answer whether he feels I am summarizing accurately.
Max
1) For the same reason nobody seriously considered a nuke, absolutely no indication of need or presence.
2) D All of the above.
3) The white flashes could not be(and are still not) identified, and could have come from multiple sources.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
1.) No one considered demolition by arson/heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets). 2.) No one considered demolition by arson/heat-weakening because: a.) There is zero evidence to support collapse initiation by arson; b.) The idea is physically or practically impossible; c.) The idea is stupid. 3.) The white flashes in the video are insignificant. Perhaps each could answer whether he feels I am summarizing accurately. Max |
1) For the same reason nobody seriously considered a nuke, absolutely no indication of need or presence.
2) D All of the above.
3) The white flashes could not be(and are still not) identified, and could have come from multiple sources.
The most rational basis is that the people you mentioned - while willing to defend the Constitution - are so patriotic that they can't vsualize an inside job - it is too incredible. 911 synthetic terror is being cloaked by incredulity. (Incredible, isn't it.)
You've provided zero evidence that it WAS an inside job, real science requires valid, positive evidence, not "just so" fairy tales.
QUOTE
To kill the magic illusion, reveal the trick.
I am trying to reveal the trick.
...oh, and save the world from oblivion.
I am trying to reveal the trick.
...oh, and save the world from oblivion.
But there was no magic trick, it happened exactly as it appeared to.
Plane hits building, building fall down. It happened twice on that day, so it would seem it always works, provided you have a big enough plane.
Grumpy
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 4 2008, 08:33 PM)
Hi Max Photon! Pleased to make your acquaintence.
Speaking of open minds, have you had time to ponder the implications of my last post for your thermite CD speculations?
If not, then please allow me to point some out for your further consideration....
If the thermite 'charge' poured into the holes was so small as your speculations depend on, and for its residue/effects to not be immediately apparent to someone wondering what happened to the bolts etc), then the large surface area and smallness of charge would not produce enough TOTAL and SUATAINED heating to be effective....simply because any heat FIRST goes to melting the 'charge' material itself (so that the reaction can continue to completion for all the charge), and THEN any heat transferred during the 'charge material' cooling would go SO QUICKLY to the LARGE STEEL MASS (conduction) and SURROUNDING AIR (radiation/convection) that the 'charge' materials would effectively be WELDED ONTO any steel surfaces....and NOT have sufficient total/fast heating effect to do anything in the short time and little total heat produced from such small 'thermite' charges.
Also problematic for your speculated scenario is the fact that any such thermite charge would have to affect bolts/welds IN THE FIRMLY CLOSED INTERSTICES BETWEEN THE BOLT NUT/HEAD and/or any WELD INTERIOR MASS. Otherwise, as I said, the chatge materials merely ADD TO bolt/weld MASS/STRENGTH...which is the OPPOSITE of what you want.
And if the charge was to be large/sustained enough to do as you want, then the CHARGE QUANTITIES/EFFECTS would be only TOO obvious at a glance when the column ends/connections were OBSERVED and PHOTOGRAPHED by practically every man and his dog for WEEKS/MONTHS during rubble fires AND cleanup.
.
How's that for your open mind to consider, Max Photon?
Rushed again. Sorry I can't stay for a proper chat, MP.
Cheers to you and all!
RC.
Quick reality check on RealityCheck...
If perimeter columns are subjected to a bending moment, say by floors that sagged and cooled, and - simultaneously - thermite heated the perimeter column splice bolts,
The moment capacity of the A325 bolts would:
a.) increase
b.) decrease
resulting in a:
a.) stronger column splice
b.) weaker column splice
more prone to:
a.) not failing
b.) failing
Max
Grumpy:
Actually, to be precise,
it was TWO Planes hit TWO buildings and THREE buildings fall down.....
Actually, to be precise,
it was TWO Planes hit TWO buildings and THREE buildings fall down.....
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 4 2008, 09:12 PM)
Grumpy:
Actually, to be precise,
it was TWO Planes hit TWO buildings and THREE buildings fall down.....
Please...
Stop peppering us with your insignificant factoids.
Actually, to be precise,
it was TWO Planes hit TWO buildings and THREE buildings fall down.....
Please...
Stop peppering us with your insignificant factoids.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 03:31 PM)
The most rational basis is that the people you mentioned - while willing to defend the Constitution - are so patriotic that they can't vsualize an inside job - it is too incredible. 911 synthetic terror is being cloaked by incredulity. (Incredible, isn't it.)
So it is not that these people are willing to remain silent. These people are silent only because they are oblivious. (You seem oblivious to your oblivion.)
But again, you claim some UNIQUE ability to see things that several HUNDREDS of VERY INTELLIGENT people (and people TRAINED in the relevant sciences) LACK.
What makes YOU unique Max?
It gets even MORE incredulous when you involve Remote Controlled planes because now the excuse that the people at Boeing, AA, United etc were oblivious is ludicrous. They most certainly couldn't have been oblivious to something that would have required very UNUSUAL OVERT actions on their part to pull off.
Finally, NIST obviously DID consider the unthinkable, since in their report and in their FAQs they deal with the fact that NO EVIDENCE was found to support Controlled Demolition and MAX-MIHOP falls within that scope.
Arthur
So it is not that these people are willing to remain silent. These people are silent only because they are oblivious. (You seem oblivious to your oblivion.)
But again, you claim some UNIQUE ability to see things that several HUNDREDS of VERY INTELLIGENT people (and people TRAINED in the relevant sciences) LACK.
What makes YOU unique Max?
It gets even MORE incredulous when you involve Remote Controlled planes because now the excuse that the people at Boeing, AA, United etc were oblivious is ludicrous. They most certainly couldn't have been oblivious to something that would have required very UNUSUAL OVERT actions on their part to pull off.
Finally, NIST obviously DID consider the unthinkable, since in their report and in their FAQs they deal with the fact that NO EVIDENCE was found to support Controlled Demolition and MAX-MIHOP falls within that scope.
Arthur
Max Photon --- All but 2c. I view the idea as too clever for words. 
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 03:31 PM)
911-God
911-Ego Maniac is a tad more accurate.
Arthur
911-Ego Maniac is a tad more accurate.
Arthur
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 08:52 PM)
Quick reality check on RealityCheck...
If perimeter columns are subjected to a bending moment, say by floors that sagged and cooled, and - simultaneously - thermite heated the perimeter column splice bolts,
The moment capacity of the A325 bolts would:
a.) increase
b.) decrease
resulting in a:
a.) stronger column splice
b.) weaker column splice
more prone to:
a.) not failing
b.) failing
Max
Did you understand the point about TOTAL/SUSTAINED heating required to elevate the steel temps in the critical areas/interstices sufficiently to affect the desired 'weakening'? Otherwise, like I said, it would be like a struck match flikering BRIEFLY against a LARGE COLD DENSE MASS which sucks up any heat energy and cools the charge material products ONTO THE SURFACE.
That is why THERMITIC LANCES etc depend on SUSTAINED and JET ACTION to sufficiently heat/penetrate AT ALL rather than to merely ADD TO the steel being worked on. Note the QUANTITIES and DURATION and ACTIVELY DIRECTED HEAT/FORCES required to even affect the steel surfaces/interstices to be worked on.
Like I said: If SMALL/ and hence BRIEF charge, then no effect other than to add onto the surfaces because the charge 'melt' quantities have LARGE RADIATIVE/CONVECTIVE/CONDUCTIVE surface areas/pathways which will make the 'melt' effect on any target bolt/weld too small.
And any LARGE ENOUGH charge would be obvious in effects. Which would also invalidate your 'hidden difference' speculations.
And everyone are ALREADY and for quite some time AGREED (including adoucette, Grumpy, DBB etc etc, for years, and across all these 9/11 threads) that the heating/cooling and loadshifting nature of the building's design/structure before/during/after impact and fires, would result in EXTREME STRESSES OUTSIDE DESIGN PARAMETERS for bolts and other connections.
So what's NEW?
These connections were stressed and failed as things got worse by the minute...ALL without needing anything other than the factor of various connections initially and progressively failing becuase they were not designed to take the loadshifting/heating/cooling effects due to PLANE impacts and OFFICE fires and internal impacts during intiial/progressive collapse ON SUCH VAST SCALES....all without FIREFIGHTING or STEEL PROTECTION during SUSTAINED EXCESSIVE HEATING and COOLING processes which FAR OUTWEIGHED any puny thermitic effects as you speculate.
So if you depend on PREVIOUSLY STRESSED/COMPROMISED bolts/connections for your thermite to 'work on' in a 'hidden critical extent' way, then since the VAST SCALES of weight/stresses etc that WELL EXCEEDED the design limits of such things, your posited 'inputs' would NOT BE NEEDED because they would fail anyhow. See?
Would YOU now please use your 'speculative smarts' to explain where and why the critical and sufficient energies/effects from planes and fires would 'need' any assistance AT ALL to give what was observed in buildings NEVER DESIGNED to withstand such extensive damage/impact and UNFOUGHT fires and such loadshifting etc stresses amongst the remaining structure that was DEPENDENT on INTEGRAL SUPPORT/BACKUP that was EFFECTIVELY FATALLY COMPROMISED by impacts and fires?
Thanks. Back later.
RC.
.
If perimeter columns are subjected to a bending moment, say by floors that sagged and cooled, and - simultaneously - thermite heated the perimeter column splice bolts,
The moment capacity of the A325 bolts would:
a.) increase
b.) decrease
resulting in a:
a.) stronger column splice
b.) weaker column splice
more prone to:
a.) not failing
b.) failing
Max
Did you understand the point about TOTAL/SUSTAINED heating required to elevate the steel temps in the critical areas/interstices sufficiently to affect the desired 'weakening'? Otherwise, like I said, it would be like a struck match flikering BRIEFLY against a LARGE COLD DENSE MASS which sucks up any heat energy and cools the charge material products ONTO THE SURFACE.
That is why THERMITIC LANCES etc depend on SUSTAINED and JET ACTION to sufficiently heat/penetrate AT ALL rather than to merely ADD TO the steel being worked on. Note the QUANTITIES and DURATION and ACTIVELY DIRECTED HEAT/FORCES required to even affect the steel surfaces/interstices to be worked on.
Like I said: If SMALL/ and hence BRIEF charge, then no effect other than to add onto the surfaces because the charge 'melt' quantities have LARGE RADIATIVE/CONVECTIVE/CONDUCTIVE surface areas/pathways which will make the 'melt' effect on any target bolt/weld too small.
And any LARGE ENOUGH charge would be obvious in effects. Which would also invalidate your 'hidden difference' speculations.
And everyone are ALREADY and for quite some time AGREED (including adoucette, Grumpy, DBB etc etc, for years, and across all these 9/11 threads) that the heating/cooling and loadshifting nature of the building's design/structure before/during/after impact and fires, would result in EXTREME STRESSES OUTSIDE DESIGN PARAMETERS for bolts and other connections.
So what's NEW?
These connections were stressed and failed as things got worse by the minute...ALL without needing anything other than the factor of various connections initially and progressively failing becuase they were not designed to take the loadshifting/heating/cooling effects due to PLANE impacts and OFFICE fires and internal impacts during intiial/progressive collapse ON SUCH VAST SCALES....all without FIREFIGHTING or STEEL PROTECTION during SUSTAINED EXCESSIVE HEATING and COOLING processes which FAR OUTWEIGHED any puny thermitic effects as you speculate.
So if you depend on PREVIOUSLY STRESSED/COMPROMISED bolts/connections for your thermite to 'work on' in a 'hidden critical extent' way, then since the VAST SCALES of weight/stresses etc that WELL EXCEEDED the design limits of such things, your posited 'inputs' would NOT BE NEEDED because they would fail anyhow. See?
Would YOU now please use your 'speculative smarts' to explain where and why the critical and sufficient energies/effects from planes and fires would 'need' any assistance AT ALL to give what was observed in buildings NEVER DESIGNED to withstand such extensive damage/impact and UNFOUGHT fires and such loadshifting etc stresses amongst the remaining structure that was DEPENDENT on INTEGRAL SUPPORT/BACKUP that was EFFECTIVELY FATALLY COMPROMISED by impacts and fires?
Thanks. Back later.
RC.
.
Max Photon's taffy exterior wall columns would have a hard time exhibiting the buckling observed on (eventually) all four walls of WTC 1. This buckling extends over about six stories. If part of the wall sections (Note: not trees. The trees are only from floor 7 through about floor 9.) were turned to taffy, the buckling would not exhibit the classical form observed --- for columns of uniform strength.
Bizzaro.
Bizzaro.
David / Arthur,
It seems to me that I have answered many of your questions.
It seems both of you are a little behind on your answers.
If you're not going to answer, please simply say so.
Max
It seems to me that I have answered many of your questions.
It seems both of you are a little behind on your answers.
If you're not going to answer, please simply say so.
Max
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2008, 09:22 PM)
But again, you claim some UNIQUE ability to see things that several HUNDREDS of VERY INTELLIGENT people (and people TRAINED in the relevant sciences) LACK.
What makes YOU unique Max?
Arthur,
What makes me unique?
Well aside from the dashing good looks, boyish charm, and WTC collapse initiation model that will in due time kick bootie, what makes me unique is that I cartoon for fun, and as a cartoonist I understand the geometry of humor - which is a cusp catastrophe.
Well guess what? The geometry of deception, is the same as the geometry of humor, (is the same as the geometry of breaking waves). That geometry is a cusp catastrophe.
In other words, 911 is a joke!
Get it?
I do.
That's what makes me unique.
Max One-of-a-Kind Photon
Max One-of-a-Kind Photon
Note: If you're pressed for time, "Max is smarter than hundreds of experts combined," should suffice.
What makes YOU unique Max?
Arthur,
What makes me unique?
Well aside from the dashing good looks, boyish charm, and WTC collapse initiation model that will in due time kick bootie, what makes me unique is that I cartoon for fun, and as a cartoonist I understand the geometry of humor - which is a cusp catastrophe.
Well guess what? The geometry of deception, is the same as the geometry of humor, (is the same as the geometry of breaking waves). That geometry is a cusp catastrophe.
In other words, 911 is a joke!
Get it?
I do.
That's what makes me unique.
Max One-of-a-Kind Photon
Max One-of-a-Kind Photon
Note: If you're pressed for time, "Max is smarter than hundreds of experts combined," should suffice.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Jan 4 2008, 05:46 PM)
Yes, it is. And really good, too. It's making me rethink the idea of using a stabilizer on part of the video I'm working with (not for data portions, just the shake). What's more interesting is to consider what it takes to minimize the error in position of successive frames. It reminds me of some code I wrote lately; ever re-inventing the wheel, I guess.
I've also to figure out how to use them, we are currently limited to tripod taken videos. In the last movie I posted I found some very strange things, but I could be wrong, I'll discuss it later.
I've also to figure out how to use them, we are currently limited to tripod taken videos. In the last movie I posted I found some very strange things, but I could be wrong, I'll discuss it later.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 02:49 PM)
It seems to me that I have answered many of your questions.
No, so far you have just blithered and blathered on.
Your grade for producing evidence and calculations so far is:
No, so far you have just blithered and blathered on.
Your grade for producing evidence and calculations so far is:
- F
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 4 2008, 06:46 PM)
Yes. The crushing front is vertical, so another process is required to produce a horizontal speed. One possibility is the pressure of the crushed materials.
Another is simply that the appropriate part of the exterior wall simply fell over. In this case you will want to do a different analysis. Start by assuming a rigid section of wall, hinged at various levels above the ground.
I remember at one of those debunking sites that is used as an argument, but if they fell over like a snake that jumps out of his skin then all mass should really funnel inside with the perimeter columns staying connected. That is absolutely not what we see, all perimeter columns are broken.
Another is simply that the appropriate part of the exterior wall simply fell over. In this case you will want to do a different analysis. Start by assuming a rigid section of wall, hinged at various levels above the ground.
I remember at one of those debunking sites that is used as an argument, but if they fell over like a snake that jumps out of his skin then all mass should really funnel inside with the perimeter columns staying connected. That is absolutely not what we see, all perimeter columns are broken.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 4 2008, 09:12 PM)
Grumpy:
Actually, to be precise,
it was TWO Planes hit TWO buildings and THREE buildings fall down.....
In a Danish mainstream 9/11 discussion a man recently said "So everyone who can count to 2 or 3 will see there is a problem"...
Actually, to be precise,
it was TWO Planes hit TWO buildings and THREE buildings fall down.....
In a Danish mainstream 9/11 discussion a man recently said "So everyone who can count to 2 or 3 will see there is a problem"...
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 4 2008, 03:21 PM)
... all mass should really funnel inside with the perimeter columns staying connected.
That is absolutely not what we see, all perimeter columns are broken.
Just long enough for the majority of the crushed materials to pass by.
Then the exterior walls fall down.
That is absolutely not what we see, all perimeter columns are broken.
Just long enough for the majority of the crushed materials to pass by.
Then the exterior walls fall down.
Gentle readers,
David Benson and Arthur Doucette have been posed the following questions - in a variety of forms:
- Did you ever even consider controlled demolition by heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets)?
- Did NIST?
- Do you know of any experts who did?
They refuse to answer.
I don't know about you, but I'll take that as 3 NOs from each of them.
It appears that all of the eggspurts never thought to think that the fires could have been catalyzed by arsonists.
Is that possible? Could ALL the experts have fumbled?
It's sure looking that way!
Max
David Benson and Arthur Doucette have been posed the following questions - in a variety of forms:
- Did you ever even consider controlled demolition by heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets)?
- Did NIST?
- Do you know of any experts who did?
They refuse to answer.
I don't know about you, but I'll take that as 3 NOs from each of them.
It appears that all of the eggspurts never thought to think that the fires could have been catalyzed by arsonists.
Is that possible? Could ALL the experts have fumbled?
It's sure looking that way!
Max
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 4 2008, 10:31 PM)
Just long enough for the majority of the crushed materials to pass by.
Then the exterior walls fall down.
But they can only fall over (far away) if they are still connected, see this picture
http://i13.tinypic.com/6jv31ur.gif
#1 wrong
#2 right
Then the exterior walls fall down.
But they can only fall over (far away) if they are still connected, see this picture
http://i13.tinypic.com/6jv31ur.gif
#1 wrong
#2 right
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 10:35 PM)
Gentle readers,
David Benson and Arthur Doucette have been posed the following questions - in a variety of forms:
- Did you ever even consider controlled demolition by heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets)?
- Did NIST?
- Do you know of any experts who did?
They refuse to answer.
I don't know about you, but I'll take that as 3 NOs from each of them.
It appears that all of the eggspurts never thought to think that the fires could have been catalyzed by arsonists.
Is that possible? Could ALL the experts have fumbled?
It's sure looking that way!
Max
Max Photon.
David Benson and Arthur Doucette have been posed the following questions - in a variety of forms:
- Did you ever even consider controlled demolition by heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets)?
- Did NIST?
- Do you know of any experts who did?
They refuse to answer.
I don't know about you, but I'll take that as 3 NOs from each of them.
It appears that all of the eggspurts never thought to think that the fires could have been catalyzed by arsonists.
Is that possible? Could ALL the experts have fumbled?
It's sure looking that way!
Max
Max Photon.
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
Lockerbie is known internationally as the site where, on December 21, 1988, the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 crash landed as a result of a terrorist bomb. In the UK the event is referred to as the Lockerbie disaster, the Lockerbie bombing, or simply Lockerbie. Eleven townspeople were killed in Sherwood Crescent, where the plane's wings and fuel tanks plummeted in a fiery explosion, leaving a huge crater. The 270 fatalities (259 on the plane, 11 in Lockerbie) were citizens of 21 nations. Of them, 189 were Americans.
When will your 'arsonist catalysed' speculations re the above event be forthcoming?
If none IS forthcoming, then please explain why YOU did not consider THAT possibility in THAT case? (in compiling that explanation, I think you may find that you will also answer your own excrutiatingly insipid 'why not' questions re 9/11).
Thanking you in anticipation. Back later.
RC.
.
When will your 'arsonist catalysed' speculations re the above event be forthcoming?
If none IS forthcoming, then please explain why YOU did not consider THAT possibility in THAT case? (in compiling that explanation, I think you may find that you will also answer your own excrutiatingly insipid 'why not' questions re 9/11).
Thanking you in anticipation. Back later.
RC.
.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 4 2008, 03:40 PM)
But they can only fall over (far away) if they are still connected, ...
#1 wrong
#2 right
Possibly. In any case, it is clear from the evidence that a large (bottom) portion of the west wall of WTC 1 fell over (i.e., connected) into West Street.
I think you meant to write that #1 is right and #2 is wrong. However, we still have no compelling reasons to discard #2. It might have been what happened in some instances.
#1 wrong
#2 right
Possibly. In any case, it is clear from the evidence that a large (bottom) portion of the west wall of WTC 1 fell over (i.e., connected) into West Street.
I think you meant to write that #1 is right and #2 is wrong. However, we still have no compelling reasons to discard #2. It might have been what happened in some instances.
Max Photon
Yeah, your a laugh riot, a real clown. But I don't consider almost 3000 deaths funny at all. Nor the calling of my fellow Americans murderers. I actually blame the Islamic nutjobs who actually flew the planes, I guess I'm just funny that way. Troother nutjobs, now that's funny(in a sick, perverted kind of way).
By the way, it isn't "Two planes hit two buildings and three fall down", It's two planes hit two buildings and they fall down on the other buildings, which then fall down(substantially or completely). A total of 7 buildings received terminal damage that day, 7 just happened to be the last one to fall.
Grumpy
QUOTE
In other words, 911 is a joke!
Yeah, your a laugh riot, a real clown. But I don't consider almost 3000 deaths funny at all. Nor the calling of my fellow Americans murderers. I actually blame the Islamic nutjobs who actually flew the planes, I guess I'm just funny that way. Troother nutjobs, now that's funny(in a sick, perverted kind of way).
By the way, it isn't "Two planes hit two buildings and three fall down", It's two planes hit two buildings and they fall down on the other buildings, which then fall down(substantially or completely). A total of 7 buildings received terminal damage that day, 7 just happened to be the last one to fall.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 05:09 PM)
Arthur,
What makes me unique?
Well aside from the dashing good looks, boyish charm, and WTC collapse initiation model that will in due time kick bootie, what makes me unique is that I cartoon for fun, and as a cartoonist I understand the geometry of humor - which is a cusp catastrophe.
Well guess what? The geometry of deception, is the same as the geometry of humor, (is the same as the geometry of breaking waves). That geometry is a cusp catastrophe.
In other words, 911 is a joke!
Get it?
I do.
That's what makes me unique.
Max One-of-a-Kind Photon
Max One-of-a-Kind Photon
Note: If you're pressed for time, "Max is smarter than hundreds of experts combined," should suffice.
Sorry Max, you have to explain why you can see something just from what you find on the internet that HUNDREDS of EXPERTs in the SCIENCE of Buildings and Fires and their effect on each other DID not see, even though these scientists got to work with the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and the ORIGINAL photos/videos.
Your qualifications as a cartoonist isn't very convincing.
Understanding deception is not the same as FINDING deception.
You haven't shown any yet.
And your comment that "9/11 was a joke" was in decidedly POOR TASTE.
Get it?
I do.
In fact I got you from your first post.
Arthur
What makes me unique?
Well aside from the dashing good looks, boyish charm, and WTC collapse initiation model that will in due time kick bootie, what makes me unique is that I cartoon for fun, and as a cartoonist I understand the geometry of humor - which is a cusp catastrophe.
Well guess what? The geometry of deception, is the same as the geometry of humor, (is the same as the geometry of breaking waves). That geometry is a cusp catastrophe.
In other words, 911 is a joke!
Get it?
I do.
That's what makes me unique.
Max One-of-a-Kind Photon
Max One-of-a-Kind Photon
Note: If you're pressed for time, "Max is smarter than hundreds of experts combined," should suffice.
Sorry Max, you have to explain why you can see something just from what you find on the internet that HUNDREDS of EXPERTs in the SCIENCE of Buildings and Fires and their effect on each other DID not see, even though these scientists got to work with the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and the ORIGINAL photos/videos.
Your qualifications as a cartoonist isn't very convincing.
Understanding deception is not the same as FINDING deception.
You haven't shown any yet.
And your comment that "9/11 was a joke" was in decidedly POOR TASTE.
Get it?
I do.
In fact I got you from your first post.
Arthur
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 05:35 PM)
Gentle readers,
David Benson and Arthur Doucette have been posed the following questions - in a variety of forms:
- Did you ever even consider controlled demolition by heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets)?
- Did NIST?
- Do you know of any experts who did?
They refuse to answer.
???
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=297989
David's answer is just above.
Need help keeping up?
You know like answering this question that you skipped:
Arthur
David Benson and Arthur Doucette have been posed the following questions - in a variety of forms:
- Did you ever even consider controlled demolition by heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets)?
- Did NIST?
- Do you know of any experts who did?
They refuse to answer.
???
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=297989
David's answer is just above.
Need help keeping up?
You know like answering this question that you skipped:
QUOTE
Please explain which observation you have that is somehow ONLY consistent with Thermite and NOT consistent with the NIST plane impact & fire theory?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2008, 04:31 PM)
David's answer is just above.
Need help keeping up?
Just above Arthur's, that is.
I have to make it very clear for the feeble-minded.
Need help keeping up?
Just above Arthur's, that is.
I have to make it very clear for the feeble-minded.
Here's a question:
NIST says that the loss of thermal insulation is key to the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
Also key to the collapse is the BOWING of perimeter columns in the upper sections of the towers in the minutes prior to total collapse of each building.
NIST claim that the aircraft impacts disloged the thermal insulation in the fire-affected floors. But NIST only really talk about this loss of insulation for the floor trusses and the core columns. The perimeter columns are conviently neglected. I wonder why...
Well, take a look at Fig 3-4 on page 17 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6A.
Now explain how such a column lost its thermal insulation so that it heat weakened and bowed.........
Could it be that these perimeter columns easily lost the layer of vermiculite plaster on the inside while retaining the SFRM on the outside due to its aluminum cladding.
Uneven heating of such an assembly would make it bow like a bi-metallic strip even without axial loading.
NIST says that the loss of thermal insulation is key to the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
Also key to the collapse is the BOWING of perimeter columns in the upper sections of the towers in the minutes prior to total collapse of each building.
NIST claim that the aircraft impacts disloged the thermal insulation in the fire-affected floors. But NIST only really talk about this loss of insulation for the floor trusses and the core columns. The perimeter columns are conviently neglected. I wonder why...
Well, take a look at Fig 3-4 on page 17 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6A.
Now explain how such a column lost its thermal insulation so that it heat weakened and bowed.........
Could it be that these perimeter columns easily lost the layer of vermiculite plaster on the inside while retaining the SFRM on the outside due to its aluminum cladding.
Uneven heating of such an assembly would make it bow like a bi-metallic strip even without axial loading.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 4 2008, 08:47 PM)
NIST claim that the aircraft impacts disloged the thermal insulation in the fire-affected floors. But NIST only really talk about this loss of insulation for the floor trusses and the core columns. The perimeter columns are conviently neglected. I wonder why...
Neu, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Section 5.2.3 Damage to Fire Protection of Structual Steel pg 129
2nd bullet explains that they assume if the plane debris does in the office/furniture adjacent to an exterior column than it removes the vermiculite plaster on the interior face of the column.
As you suggest, the other three sides are assumed to be protected from damage.
In their impact of heat on steel modeling for the Fire Structure Interface (NIST 1-5G - Chapter 4) NIST also reviews the impact of partial removal of insulation and damage to the perimeter columns.
Arthur
Neu, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Section 5.2.3 Damage to Fire Protection of Structual Steel pg 129
2nd bullet explains that they assume if the plane debris does in the office/furniture adjacent to an exterior column than it removes the vermiculite plaster on the interior face of the column.
As you suggest, the other three sides are assumed to be protected from damage.
In their impact of heat on steel modeling for the Fire Structure Interface (NIST 1-5G - Chapter 4) NIST also reviews the impact of partial removal of insulation and damage to the perimeter columns.
Arthur
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 10:35 PM)
Gentle readers,
David Benson and Arthur Doucette have been posed the following questions - in a variety of forms:
- Did you ever even consider controlled demolition by heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets)?
- Did NIST?
- Do you know of any experts who did?
They refuse to answer.
I don't know about you, but I'll take that as 3 NOs from each of them.
It appears that all of the eggspurts never thought to think that the fires could have been catalyzed by arsonists.
Is that possible? Could ALL the experts have fumbled?
It's sure looking that way!
Max
I've been informed these are sufficient answers - given prior to the above post (sorry guys):
Arthur wrote:
"Max, if you mean demolition by heat-weakening as you have described it (i.e. thermite at various joints that goes off just prior to collapse), then no, I'd never seriously considered it until you presented it as a hypothesis.
"Can't speak for anyone else but myself."
David wrote:
"Your hypothesis is not exactly a demolition, so it isn't completely clear what you are asking. (This method of communicating is fairly low bandwidth.) If you were asking whether I had previously considered your hypothesis, then my answer is the same as NIST would provide: There is no evidence, so no point in considered such a complex plot."
So Arthur never considered demolition by heat-weakening.
David never considered demolition by heat-weakening.
NIST never considered demolition by heat-weakening.
(I know Neu-Fonze did consider demolition by heat-weakening, as evidenced by his ammonium-perchlorate model.)
Guys, is there any chance that something important has been missed?
Is there any chance that no one ever considered that arson is being cloaked by fire?
Max
David Benson and Arthur Doucette have been posed the following questions - in a variety of forms:
- Did you ever even consider controlled demolition by heat-weakening (beyond the fires induced by the jets)?
- Did NIST?
- Do you know of any experts who did?
They refuse to answer.
I don't know about you, but I'll take that as 3 NOs from each of them.
It appears that all of the eggspurts never thought to think that the fires could have been catalyzed by arsonists.
Is that possible? Could ALL the experts have fumbled?
It's sure looking that way!
Max
I've been informed these are sufficient answers - given prior to the above post (sorry guys):
Arthur wrote:
"Max, if you mean demolition by heat-weakening as you have described it (i.e. thermite at various joints that goes off just prior to collapse), then no, I'd never seriously considered it until you presented it as a hypothesis.
"Can't speak for anyone else but myself."
David wrote:
"Your hypothesis is not exactly a demolition, so it isn't completely clear what you are asking. (This method of communicating is fairly low bandwidth.) If you were asking whether I had previously considered your hypothesis, then my answer is the same as NIST would provide: There is no evidence, so no point in considered such a complex plot."
So Arthur never considered demolition by heat-weakening.
David never considered demolition by heat-weakening.
NIST never considered demolition by heat-weakening.
(I know Neu-Fonze did consider demolition by heat-weakening, as evidenced by his ammonium-perchlorate model.)
Guys, is there any chance that something important has been missed?
Is there any chance that no one ever considered that arson is being cloaked by fire?
Max
No one here speaks for NIST.
If you want to find out what they did or didn't consider you will have to ask them as I doubt everything they ever considered made it into the report.
But, the question for YOU is:
Arthur
If you want to find out what they did or didn't consider you will have to ask them as I doubt everything they ever considered made it into the report.
But, the question for YOU is:
QUOTE
Please explain which observation you have made that is ONLY consistent with heat weakening by Thermite and NOT consistent with NIST's plane impact & fire only theory?
Arthur
Arthur asked:
Please explain which observation you have that is somehow ONLY consistent with Thermite and NOT consistent with the NIST plane impact & fire theory?
Why? That's an incredibly silly way to view the problem.
Also, please explain which observation you have that is somehow ONLY consistent with the NIST plane impact & fire theory and NOT consistent with (the NIST plane & fire theory and) thermite?
There is a very broad set of observations, and the real question is:
Which model or explanation has greatest harmony with the entire set of observations?
Anyway to answer your question...
For the single observation MAX-MIHOP has that is somehow ONLY consistent with thermite, and not consistent with the NIST plane impact and fire theory, consider the following for WTC2:
So the single observation MAX-MIHOP has that is somehow ONLY consistent with thermite, and not consistent with the NIST plane impact and fire theory, is that the observations in the above list are correlated.
Max
(*) ETA: Actually, I think NIST omits the white flashes.
Please explain which observation you have that is somehow ONLY consistent with Thermite and NOT consistent with the NIST plane impact & fire theory?
Why? That's an incredibly silly way to view the problem.
Also, please explain which observation you have that is somehow ONLY consistent with the NIST plane impact & fire theory and NOT consistent with (the NIST plane & fire theory and) thermite?
There is a very broad set of observations, and the real question is:
Which model or explanation has greatest harmony with the entire set of observations?
Anyway to answer your question...
For the single observation MAX-MIHOP has that is somehow ONLY consistent with thermite, and not consistent with the NIST plane impact and fire theory, consider the following for WTC2:
- coordinated white smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashions steam driven pipe organs
- pressure pulses
- high speed ejected material
- 7 major smoke releases, all 1 minute long +/- a few seconds
- fires "at the tops of windows" (read: at the bottom of spandrels, ie. at gusset seats)
- "sagging floors" that change their positions over time
- "sagging floors" that disappear and reappear
- "fires on piles of debris"
- fires that burned longer that expected
- fires that with highly unusual behaviors
- flickering, traveling white flashes (*)
- white glows
- a 10 minute metal fire at the same column that initiates collapse of WTC2
- numerous metal flows
So the single observation MAX-MIHOP has that is somehow ONLY consistent with thermite, and not consistent with the NIST plane impact and fire theory, is that the observations in the above list are correlated.
Max
(*) ETA: Actually, I think NIST omits the white flashes.
Since under your idea there would be the SAME thermite planted in WTC 1 why do we not see these same set of events in WTC 1?
STRIKE 1
Oh, and by the way, not ONE of those listed items is consistent only with thermite.
STRIKE 2
Oh, and by the way, and a number of them have little to no relation to your proposed thermite weakening at all.
STRIKE 3
There you have it , Max has struck out again.
Arthur
STRIKE 1
Oh, and by the way, not ONE of those listed items is consistent only with thermite.
STRIKE 2
Oh, and by the way, and a number of them have little to no relation to your proposed thermite weakening at all.
STRIKE 3
There you have it , Max has struck out again.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 5 2008, 05:43 AM)
Since under your idea there would be the SAME thermite planted in WTC 1 why do we not see these same set of events in WTC 1?
STRIKE 1
Oh, and by the way, not ONE of those listed items is consistent only with thermite.
STRIKE 2
Oh, and by the way, and a number of them have little to no relation to your proposed thermite weakening at all.
STRIKE 3
There you have it , Max has struck out again.
Arthur
Arthur,
Although thermite was used in WTC1 (and WTC7), the collapse initiation mechanisms were a bit different (as were the conditions), so the observations from the exterior were different.
I chose to discuss WTC2. Surely if one tower can be shown to have thermite, that suffices?
BALL 1
You asked for one observation.
I said the CORRELATION of NIST's observations on the list was my one observation.
BALL 2
The CORRELATION of the observations on the list IS CONSISTENT ONLY WITH THERMITE. (If you have a better unifying model - (NIST doesn't) - I'm all ears. As Neu-Fonze says, "Don't be shy.")
BALL 3
ALL of NIST's observations that I listed (plus the traveling white flashes NIST missed, or omitted, or swept under "white glows") have a DIRECT RELATION to my proposed thermite weakening. You are simply lost, based on your ignorance of NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C and my model, and the relationship between them.
BALL 4
(Ball 1 still hasn't rolled to the plate yet.)
Max
STRIKE 1
Oh, and by the way, not ONE of those listed items is consistent only with thermite.
STRIKE 2
Oh, and by the way, and a number of them have little to no relation to your proposed thermite weakening at all.
STRIKE 3
There you have it , Max has struck out again.
Arthur
Arthur,
Although thermite was used in WTC1 (and WTC7), the collapse initiation mechanisms were a bit different (as were the conditions), so the observations from the exterior were different.
I chose to discuss WTC2. Surely if one tower can be shown to have thermite, that suffices?
BALL 1
You asked for one observation.
I said the CORRELATION of NIST's observations on the list was my one observation.
BALL 2
The CORRELATION of the observations on the list IS CONSISTENT ONLY WITH THERMITE. (If you have a better unifying model - (NIST doesn't) - I'm all ears. As Neu-Fonze says, "Don't be shy.")
BALL 3
ALL of NIST's observations that I listed (plus the traveling white flashes NIST missed, or omitted, or swept under "white glows") have a DIRECT RELATION to my proposed thermite weakening. You are simply lost, based on your ignorance of NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C and my model, and the relationship between them.
BALL 4
(Ball 1 still hasn't rolled to the plate yet.)
Max
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 5 2008, 01:47 AM)
Here's a question:
NIST says that the loss of thermal insulation is key to the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
Also key to the collapse is the BOWING of perimeter columns in the upper sections of the towers in the minutes prior to total collapse of each building.
NIST claim that the aircraft impacts dislodged the thermal insulation in the fire-affected floors. But NIST only really talk about this loss of insulation for the floor trusses and the core columns. The perimeter columns are conveniently neglected. I wonder why...
Well, take a look at Fig 3-4 on page 17 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6A.
Now explain how such a column lost its thermal insulation so that it heat weakened and bowed.........
Could it be that these perimeter columns easily lost the layer of vermiculite plaster on the inside while retaining the SFRM on the outside due to its aluminum cladding.
Uneven heating of such an assembly would make it bow like a bi-metallic strip even without axial loading.
Could it be that these perimeter columns easily lost the layer of vermiculite plaster on the inside while retaining the SFRM on the outside due to its aluminum cladding[?]
Neu-Fonze,
There could be additional reasons for plaster being dislodged while the SFRM remained intact:
- (Obviously) the SFRM was on the leeward side of blast effects.
- The inside face of the perimeter is flat or flush, so any impact by an object is a direct hit. In contrast, the exterior has relief, affording "safe harbor" for the SFRM.
- The plaster might have been more brittle.
Max
NIST says that the loss of thermal insulation is key to the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
Also key to the collapse is the BOWING of perimeter columns in the upper sections of the towers in the minutes prior to total collapse of each building.
NIST claim that the aircraft impacts dislodged the thermal insulation in the fire-affected floors. But NIST only really talk about this loss of insulation for the floor trusses and the core columns. The perimeter columns are conveniently neglected. I wonder why...
Well, take a look at Fig 3-4 on page 17 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6A.
Now explain how such a column lost its thermal insulation so that it heat weakened and bowed.........
Could it be that these perimeter columns easily lost the layer of vermiculite plaster on the inside while retaining the SFRM on the outside due to its aluminum cladding.
Uneven heating of such an assembly would make it bow like a bi-metallic strip even without axial loading.
Could it be that these perimeter columns easily lost the layer of vermiculite plaster on the inside while retaining the SFRM on the outside due to its aluminum cladding[?]
Neu-Fonze,
There could be additional reasons for plaster being dislodged while the SFRM remained intact:
- (Obviously) the SFRM was on the leeward side of blast effects.
- The inside face of the perimeter is flat or flush, so any impact by an object is a direct hit. In contrast, the exterior has relief, affording "safe harbor" for the SFRM.
- The plaster might have been more brittle.
Max
Crazy Chainsaw,
A while back you said the some colony of engineers examined WTC2's perimeter column 301/81 - the column that had a 10 minute metal fire right at the bolt-access-holes. You know, the column that bowed inward and failed, initiating the collapse of WTC2.
I know NIST did not study that column.
Do you have any links or reference to the species of engineers, their finding, or similar?
Also, can you or someone elaborate on how or why enjinears studied a fire-affected column - heck, THE fire-affected column that initiated collapse - yet NIST chose instead to play FIRE! on their PlayStation One Zillion?
Arthur, you know everything. Any input?
Max
ETA: Is anyone else troubled that NIST did not collect or examine one - not one - fire-affected perimeter column from WTC2?
Not one.
Zero.
Bizarre.
(Yet ungeniers examined 301? It's like I'm in a bizarre bazaar.)
A while back you said the some colony of engineers examined WTC2's perimeter column 301/81 - the column that had a 10 minute metal fire right at the bolt-access-holes. You know, the column that bowed inward and failed, initiating the collapse of WTC2.
I know NIST did not study that column.
Do you have any links or reference to the species of engineers, their finding, or similar?
Also, can you or someone elaborate on how or why enjinears studied a fire-affected column - heck, THE fire-affected column that initiated collapse - yet NIST chose instead to play FIRE! on their PlayStation One Zillion?
Arthur, you know everything. Any input?
Max
ETA: Is anyone else troubled that NIST did not collect or examine one - not one - fire-affected perimeter column from WTC2?
Not one.
Zero.
Bizarre.
(Yet ungeniers examined 301? It's like I'm in a bizarre bazaar.)
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 08:09 AM)
Arthur,
Although thermite was used in WTC1 (and WTC7), the collapse initiation mechanisms were a bit different (as were the conditions), so the observations from the exterior were different.
I chose to discuss WTC2. Surely if one tower can be shown to have thermite, that suffices?
BALL 1
You asked for one observation.
I said the CORRELATION of NIST's observations on the list was my one observation.
BALL 2
The CORRELATION of the observations on the list IS CONSISTENT ONLY WITH THERMITE. (If you have a better unifying model - (NIST doesn't) - I'm all ears. As Neu-Fonze says, "Don't be shy.")
BALL 3
ALL of NIST's observations that I listed (plus the traveling white flashes NIST missed, or omitted, or swept under "white glows") have a DIRECT RELATION to my proposed thermite weakening. You are simply lost, based on your ignorance of NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C and my model, and the relationship between them.
BALL 4
(Ball 1 still hasn't rolled to the plate yet.)
Max
Nope Max,
I asked you to show something that was consistent ONLY with Thermite and NOT consistent with NIST's fire/plane explanation.
You only stated your PREMISE.
Although thermite was used in WTC1 (and WTC7), the collapse initiation mechanisms were a bit different (as were the conditions), so the observations from the exterior were different.
I chose to discuss WTC2. Surely if one tower can be shown to have thermite, that suffices?
BALL 1
You asked for one observation.
I said the CORRELATION of NIST's observations on the list was my one observation.
BALL 2
The CORRELATION of the observations on the list IS CONSISTENT ONLY WITH THERMITE. (If you have a better unifying model - (NIST doesn't) - I'm all ears. As Neu-Fonze says, "Don't be shy.")
BALL 3
ALL of NIST's observations that I listed (plus the traveling white flashes NIST missed, or omitted, or swept under "white glows") have a DIRECT RELATION to my proposed thermite weakening. You are simply lost, based on your ignorance of NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C and my model, and the relationship between them.
BALL 4
(Ball 1 still hasn't rolled to the plate yet.)
Max
Nope Max,
I asked you to show something that was consistent ONLY with Thermite and NOT consistent with NIST's fire/plane explanation.
You only stated your PREMISE.
QUOTE (Max+)
So the single observation MAX-MIHOP has that is somehow ONLY consistent with thermite, and not consistent with the NIST plane impact and fire theory, is that the observations in the above list are correlated.
You, however, added NOTHING to prove your premise.
Struck Out.
Again.
Arthur
You, however, added NOTHING to prove your premise.
Struck Out.
Again.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 5 2008, 02:29 PM)
Nope Max,
I asked you to show something that was consistent ONLY with Thermite and NOT consistent with NIST's fire/plane explanation.
You only stated your PREMISE.
You, however, added NOTHING to prove your premise.
Struck Out.
Again.
Arthur
Arthur,
Are you really this lost, or are you just kidding around?
You initially asked for one observation.
That the phenomena on the list are correlated was NIST's observation.
That observation is not consistent with NIST's model.
That observation is consistent with thermite.
I have not other explanation that would explain the correlation.
Do you? I seriously doubt it.
Therefore, it appears the correlation is consistent only with thermite.
Why are you purposely confusing the issue? (Because you're on the defensive?)
That the phenomena on the list are correlated is not my premise, it is NIST's observation. So unless you are saying NIST is lying...
I answered your question.
You are merely being an obstructionist.
Max
I asked you to show something that was consistent ONLY with Thermite and NOT consistent with NIST's fire/plane explanation.
You only stated your PREMISE.
You, however, added NOTHING to prove your premise.
Struck Out.
Again.
Arthur
Arthur,
Are you really this lost, or are you just kidding around?
You initially asked for one observation.
That the phenomena on the list are correlated was NIST's observation.
That observation is not consistent with NIST's model.
That observation is consistent with thermite.
I have not other explanation that would explain the correlation.
Do you? I seriously doubt it.
Therefore, it appears the correlation is consistent only with thermite.
Why are you purposely confusing the issue? (Because you're on the defensive?)
That the phenomena on the list are correlated is not my premise, it is NIST's observation. So unless you are saying NIST is lying...
I answered your question.
You are merely being an obstructionist.
Max
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2008, 11:17 PM)
Neu, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Section 5.2.3 Damage to Fire Protection of Structual Steel pg 129
2nd bullet explains that they assume if the plane debris does in the office/furniture adjacent to an exterior column than it removes the vermiculite plaster on the interior face of the column.
As you suggest, the other three sides are assumed to be protected from damage.
In their impact of heat on steel modeling for the Fire Structure Interface (NIST 1-5G - Chapter 4) NIST also reviews the impact of partial removal of insulation and damage to the perimeter columns.
Arthur
I should point out that NIST admits to being CONSERVATIVE in their estimate of SFRM damage (see 1-6 pg 129-130).
As the pictures in NIST 1-5A (such as 7-2 on pg 88) indicate, a LOT of external cladding and exterior insulation was blown off in the initial impact.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg
As far as the damage to the East wall of WTC 2 where the long lasting fires and bowing occured see NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Fig 5-23 pg 145.
Arthur
2nd bullet explains that they assume if the plane debris does in the office/furniture adjacent to an exterior column than it removes the vermiculite plaster on the interior face of the column.
As you suggest, the other three sides are assumed to be protected from damage.
In their impact of heat on steel modeling for the Fire Structure Interface (NIST 1-5G - Chapter 4) NIST also reviews the impact of partial removal of insulation and damage to the perimeter columns.
Arthur
I should point out that NIST admits to being CONSERVATIVE in their estimate of SFRM damage (see 1-6 pg 129-130).
As the pictures in NIST 1-5A (such as 7-2 on pg 88) indicate, a LOT of external cladding and exterior insulation was blown off in the initial impact.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg
As far as the damage to the East wall of WTC 2 where the long lasting fires and bowing occured see NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Fig 5-23 pg 145.
Arthur
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 09:44 AM)
That the phenomena on the list are correlated was NIST's observation.
That observation is not consistent with NIST's model.
Please show WHERE (specific NIST report, section & page number please) NIST explains that these items are correlated but are also NOT CONSISTENT with their model.
That observation is not consistent with NIST's model.
Please show WHERE (specific NIST report, section & page number please) NIST explains that these items are correlated but are also NOT CONSISTENT with their model.
QUOTE (Max+)
That observation is consistent with thermite.
I have not other explanation that would explain the correlation.
Ah, Max, you haven't shown ANYTHING to indicate that those observations are consistent ONLY with thermite.
For instance please explain how pressure pulses or high speed ejected material are consistent with thermite and only with thermite.
I have not other explanation that would explain the correlation.
Ah, Max, you haven't shown ANYTHING to indicate that those observations are consistent ONLY with thermite.
For instance please explain how pressure pulses or high speed ejected material are consistent with thermite and only with thermite.
QUOTE (Max+)
I have not other explanation that would explain the correlation.
You do realize that this means NOTHING.
Arthur
You do realize that this means NOTHING.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 5 2008, 02:52 PM)
Please show WHERE (specific NIST report, section & page number please) NIST explains that these items are correlated but are also NOT CONSISTENT with their model.
Ah, Max, you haven't shown ANYTHING to indicate that those observations are consistent ONLY with thermite.
For instance please explain how pressure pulses or high speed ejected material are consistent with thermite and only with thermite.
Arthur,
NIST has woven that information throughout 1-5A/9/C. I'm not going to baby-sit you. Unless you have read the report - more than once - and are familiar with the phenomena in question, AND have seen them in video, AND have pondered their correlation to one another, and to NIST's collapse initiation mechanism, you are lost. You are asking me to read the report for you. Do it yourself (or get a child to read to you).
You wrote:
Ah, Max, you haven't shown ANYTHING to indicate that those observations are consistent ONLY with thermite.
For instance please explain how pressure pulses or high speed ejected material are consistent with thermite and only with thermite.
Arthur, please pay attention.
I never said each observation on the list is consistent ONLY with thermite.
The concert of the observations is consistent only with the addition of thermite to NIST's jet / fire collapse initiation model.
You're exhausting, by hey, what does one expect from the nonlinear resistance produced by pseudo-gang dynamics?
Max
Ah, Max, you haven't shown ANYTHING to indicate that those observations are consistent ONLY with thermite.
For instance please explain how pressure pulses or high speed ejected material are consistent with thermite and only with thermite.
Arthur,
NIST has woven that information throughout 1-5A/9/C. I'm not going to baby-sit you. Unless you have read the report - more than once - and are familiar with the phenomena in question, AND have seen them in video, AND have pondered their correlation to one another, and to NIST's collapse initiation mechanism, you are lost. You are asking me to read the report for you. Do it yourself (or get a child to read to you).
You wrote:
Ah, Max, you haven't shown ANYTHING to indicate that those observations are consistent ONLY with thermite.
For instance please explain how pressure pulses or high speed ejected material are consistent with thermite and only with thermite.
Arthur, please pay attention.
I never said each observation on the list is consistent ONLY with thermite.
The concert of the observations is consistent only with the addition of thermite to NIST's jet / fire collapse initiation model.
You're exhausting, by hey, what does one expect from the nonlinear resistance produced by pseudo-gang dynamics?
Max
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 5 2008, 02:52 PM)
For instance please explain how pressure pulses or high speed ejected material are consistent with thermite and only with thermite.
Arthur
Isn't that the whole after collapse initiation story ? Max seems to concentrate on a catalyst which is a helping hand for the initiation, in that case the rest is irrelevant.
Arthur
Isn't that the whole after collapse initiation story ? Max seems to concentrate on a catalyst which is a helping hand for the initiation, in that case the rest is irrelevant.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 5 2008, 10:56 AM)
Isn't that the whole after collapse initiation story ? Max seems to concentrate on a catalyst which is a helping hand for the initiation, in that case the rest is irrelevant.
Nope, both of those events are seen PRIOR to the collapse, the pressure pulses many times.
Arthur
Nope, both of those events are seen PRIOR to the collapse, the pressure pulses many times.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 5 2008, 03:56 PM)
Isn't that the whole after collapse initiation story ? Max seems to concentrate on a catalyst which is a helping hand for the initiation, in that case the rest is irrelevant.
Einsteen,
The pressure pulses and high speed ejected material I am discussing are NOT the "squibs" seen AFTER collapse initiation.
These pressure pulses and ejected material were observed by NIST BEFORE collapse initiation.
Everything I have on that list was observed BEFORE collapse initiation, and they are described in NCSTAR 1-5A/Ch 9/Ap C.
So all of those phenomena are all happening before and up to collapse initiation, and they are happening right where collapse initiation occurs.
Max to Earth:
Those phenomena are all correlated because they are all related to the ignition of thermite planted at different kinds of connections.
The sequence of the observations from WTC2's east face suggests that the progression for WTC2 was to:
1.) Ignite thermite at gusset seats to burn the dampers;
2.) Ignite thermite at top chords right by the truss seats, to cause the floors to sag;
3.) As sagging floors cooled and shortened, thereby pulling perimeter columns inward, thermite was ignited in box columns to reduce the moment capacity of the column splice bolts.
4.) Heat the NE/80-81/82-83 corner panels such that the 301 splice at floor 81 fails.
Max out
Einsteen,
The pressure pulses and high speed ejected material I am discussing are NOT the "squibs" seen AFTER collapse initiation.
These pressure pulses and ejected material were observed by NIST BEFORE collapse initiation.
Everything I have on that list was observed BEFORE collapse initiation, and they are described in NCSTAR 1-5A/Ch 9/Ap C.
So all of those phenomena are all happening before and up to collapse initiation, and they are happening right where collapse initiation occurs.
Max to Earth:
Those phenomena are all correlated because they are all related to the ignition of thermite planted at different kinds of connections.
The sequence of the observations from WTC2's east face suggests that the progression for WTC2 was to:
1.) Ignite thermite at gusset seats to burn the dampers;
2.) Ignite thermite at top chords right by the truss seats, to cause the floors to sag;
3.) As sagging floors cooled and shortened, thereby pulling perimeter columns inward, thermite was ignited in box columns to reduce the moment capacity of the column splice bolts.
4.) Heat the NE/80-81/82-83 corner panels such that the 301 splice at floor 81 fails.
Max out
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 10:51 AM)
NIST has woven that information throughout 1-5A/9/C. I'm not going to baby-sit you. Unless you have read the report - more than once - and are familiar with the phenomena in question, AND have seen them in video, AND have pondered their correlation to one another, and to NIST's collapse initiation mechanism, you are lost. You are asking me to read the report for you. Do it yourself (or get a child to read to you).
I've read the report Max.
Several times in fact.
But that's irrelevant.
The 1-5A report dealing with just WTC 2 is over 400 pages long.
You claim that it says X.
I've read it and claim it doesn't say X.
So its up to the YOU to provide some SPECIFIC examples in the report to back up your assertions.
Failure to do so would indicate that you can't, not that they are there but you are just too lazy to provide them.
Arthur
PS, as to the
I've read the report Max.
Several times in fact.
But that's irrelevant.
The 1-5A report dealing with just WTC 2 is over 400 pages long.
You claim that it says X.
I've read it and claim it doesn't say X.
So its up to the YOU to provide some SPECIFIC examples in the report to back up your assertions.
Failure to do so would indicate that you can't, not that they are there but you are just too lazy to provide them.
Arthur
PS, as to the
QUOTE (Max+)
(or get a child to read to you)
pretty funny since this comes from someone who has been spanked silly on both this and the JREF forum.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 5 2008, 04:53 PM)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
wow... 268 pages, you don't read that for fun
Einsteen,
NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C is not exactly 268 pages of reading.
The report is a description of observations of WTC2's facade between impact and collapse.
The report consists of about 85 photos.
Each photo has 1/4 to 1 page of text that goes with it.
In effect, the report is a slide show. (And an exciting one!)
Here is what I recommend:
Print out (nominal) pages 297-415 (119 pages), and staple them together in 6 batches of 20 pages for easy handling.
With a pencil, draw a horizontal line to separate the text for each photo.
In the LH margin, write in big bold letters the Figure # for that text, for fast scanning reference.
Pull the report up on your screen.
Read the report from the paper copy, while viewing on screen the photo being discussed.
This makes reading and understanding the report a breeze. I forget, but it only takes, say, 4 hours to go through the whole report.
It's worth it. The information is in the errors, and the errors are in 1-5A/9/C.
Max
wow... 268 pages, you don't read that for fun
Einsteen,
NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C is not exactly 268 pages of reading.
The report is a description of observations of WTC2's facade between impact and collapse.
The report consists of about 85 photos.
Each photo has 1/4 to 1 page of text that goes with it.
In effect, the report is a slide show. (And an exciting one!)
Here is what I recommend:
Print out (nominal) pages 297-415 (119 pages), and staple them together in 6 batches of 20 pages for easy handling.
With a pencil, draw a horizontal line to separate the text for each photo.
In the LH margin, write in big bold letters the Figure # for that text, for fast scanning reference.
Pull the report up on your screen.
Read the report from the paper copy, while viewing on screen the photo being discussed.
This makes reading and understanding the report a breeze. I forget, but it only takes, say, 4 hours to go through the whole report.
It's worth it. The information is in the errors, and the errors are in 1-5A/9/C.
Max
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 5 2008, 04:23 PM)
PS, as to the
QUOTE (Max+)
(or get a child to read to you)
pretty funny since this comes from someone who has been spanked silly on both this and the JREF forum.
Which means you spank silly on this forum?
Which means you spank silly on this forum?
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 01:54 PM)
Crazy Chainsaw,
A while back you said the some colony of engineers examined WTC2's perimeter column 301/81 - the column that had a 10 minute metal fire right at the bolt-access-holes. You know, the column that bowed inward and failed, initiating the collapse of WTC2.
I know NIST did not study that column.
Do you have any links or reference to the species of engineers, their finding, or similar?
Also, can you or someone elaborate on how or why enjinears studied a fire-affected column - heck, THE fire-affected column that initiated collapse - yet NIST chose instead to play FIRE! on their PlayStation One Zillion?
Arthur, you know everything. Any input?
Max
ETA: Is anyone else troubled that NIST did not collect or examine one - not one - fire-affected perimeter column from WTC2?
Not one.
Zero.
Bizarre.
(Yet ungeniers examined 301? It's like I'm in a bizarre bazaar.)
The society of engineers are the ones who did the initial investigation not NIST.
They looked specifically for any unusual damage especially metal-aluminum fires.
A while back you said the some colony of engineers examined WTC2's perimeter column 301/81 - the column that had a 10 minute metal fire right at the bolt-access-holes. You know, the column that bowed inward and failed, initiating the collapse of WTC2.
I know NIST did not study that column.
Do you have any links or reference to the species of engineers, their finding, or similar?
Also, can you or someone elaborate on how or why enjinears studied a fire-affected column - heck, THE fire-affected column that initiated collapse - yet NIST chose instead to play FIRE! on their PlayStation One Zillion?
Arthur, you know everything. Any input?
Max
ETA: Is anyone else troubled that NIST did not collect or examine one - not one - fire-affected perimeter column from WTC2?
Not one.
Zero.
Bizarre.
(Yet ungeniers examined 301? It's like I'm in a bizarre bazaar.)
The society of engineers are the ones who did the initial investigation not NIST.
They looked specifically for any unusual damage especially metal-aluminum fires.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 12:12 PM)
It's worth it. The information is in the errors, and the errors are in 1-5A/9/C.
So, WHY is it that you can't you point out the these errors?
SURELY, when YOU went through it you NOTED where the errors were.
You made the claim.
You provide the reference.
Failure to do so would indicate that you can't, not that they are there but you are just too lazy to provide them.
Arthur
So, WHY is it that you can't you point out the these errors?
SURELY, when YOU went through it you NOTED where the errors were.
You made the claim.
You provide the reference.
Failure to do so would indicate that you can't, not that they are there but you are just too lazy to provide them.
Arthur
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jan 5 2008, 05:30 PM)
The society of engineers are the ones who did the initial investigation not NIST.
They looked specifically for any unusual damage especially metal-aluminum fires.
CC,
You seemed to imply that the society of engineers examined WTC2 Column 301/81 specifically.
I understand you are saying they pondered the metal fire. But did they physically secure and examine Column 301/81?
Max
They looked specifically for any unusual damage especially metal-aluminum fires.
CC,
You seemed to imply that the society of engineers examined WTC2 Column 301/81 specifically.
I understand you are saying they pondered the metal fire. But did they physically secure and examine Column 301/81?
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 09:17 PM)
Guys, is there any chance that something important has been missed?
Most would say simply NO, but being a Bayesian, I need to propose a prior probability.
1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000
is very close to zero.
Most would say simply NO, but being a Bayesian, I need to propose a prior probability.
1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000
is very close to zero.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 5 2008, 07:38 PM)
Most would say simply NO, but being a Bayesian, I need to propose a prior probability.
1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000
is very close to zero.
David,
You are a confident one!
You are saying there is zero chance NIST missed anything important.
Wow. NIST is good.
Max
1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000
is very close to zero.
David,
You are a confident one!
You are saying there is zero chance NIST missed anything important.
Wow. NIST is good.
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 12:56 PM)
You are a confident one!
Wow. NIST is good.
Yes, I have studied quite a bit regarding structural stability, etc. I also know my limitations.
Finally you appear to be catching on! NCSTAR1 is not perfect, but is a most thorough study which leads to NIST's proposed probable collapse initiation scenario. So far, despite some niggling errors, this scenario holds up to intense analysis.
Wow. NIST is good.
Yes, I have studied quite a bit regarding structural stability, etc. I also know my limitations.
Finally you appear to be catching on! NCSTAR1 is not perfect, but is a most thorough study which leads to NIST's proposed probable collapse initiation scenario. So far, despite some niggling errors, this scenario holds up to intense analysis.
.
Hi Max Photon.
You appear to be the latest in a long line of convenient/expedient ignorers of the bleedin' obvious', hehehe.
Please explain why the tower that was hit SECOND was the FIRST to collapse.
And please DO try to rationalise away that bleedin' obvious TIMING/SEQUENCING flaw in your oh-so-tortured 'thermite-catalysed arson demolition' scenario.
We will all be very interested to observe your 'intellect' at work under the pressure of the cognitive dissonance you must suffer in that particular area of your brilliant DEMOLITION CONSPIRACY rationalisations so far.
By the way:
- have you figured out the implications of the LOCKERBY 'large crater' produced in solid ground when that bombed plane hit?...and...
- have you compiled your 'thermite catalysed arson' rationalisations for the fires/collapses in the buildings affected there?
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Hi Max Photon.
You appear to be the latest in a long line of convenient/expedient ignorers of the bleedin' obvious', hehehe.
Please explain why the tower that was hit SECOND was the FIRST to collapse.
And please DO try to rationalise away that bleedin' obvious TIMING/SEQUENCING flaw in your oh-so-tortured 'thermite-catalysed arson demolition' scenario.
We will all be very interested to observe your 'intellect' at work under the pressure of the cognitive dissonance you must suffer in that particular area of your brilliant DEMOLITION CONSPIRACY rationalisations so far.
By the way:
- have you figured out the implications of the LOCKERBY 'large crater' produced in solid ground when that bombed plane hit?...and...
- have you compiled your 'thermite catalysed arson' rationalisations for the fires/collapses in the buildings affected there?
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 5 2008, 08:12 PM)
Yes, I have studied quite a bit regarding structural stability, etc. I also know my limitations.
Such as the fact that you dismissed thermite - and controlled-demolition all together - despite that you had never even conceived of using thermite (or some incendiary) to heat-weaken steel connections, but rather - uncritically following the herd - you reacted to the emotionally-potent oversimplification that "thermite slices through steel like a hot knife through butter", and assumed that if thermite were used it was used for thermal cutting of the steel.
... within the restricted think-space.
... within the restricted think-space.
... which leads to NIST's proposed probable collapse initiation scenario.
I'm glad your big enough to say probable. People at JREF are a lot shorter than you.
David, no arguments or complaints from me.
Remember, I am in complete agreement with NIST's collapse mechanism. Mine is identical.
My model simply adds an additional heat source, or "fuel to the fire."
Max
Such as the fact that you dismissed thermite - and controlled-demolition all together - despite that you had never even conceived of using thermite (or some incendiary) to heat-weaken steel connections, but rather - uncritically following the herd - you reacted to the emotionally-potent oversimplification that "thermite slices through steel like a hot knife through butter", and assumed that if thermite were used it was used for thermal cutting of the steel.
QUOTE
Finally you appear to be catching on! NCSTAR1 is not perfect, but is a most thorough study [...]
... within the restricted think-space.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Finally you appear to be catching on! NCSTAR1 is not perfect, but is a most thorough study [...] |
... within the restricted think-space.
... which leads to NIST's proposed probable collapse initiation scenario.
I'm glad your big enough to say probable. People at JREF are a lot shorter than you.
QUOTE
So far, despite some niggling errors, this scenario holds up to intense analysis.
David, no arguments or complaints from me.
Remember, I am in complete agreement with NIST's collapse mechanism. Mine is identical.
My model simply adds an additional heat source, or "fuel to the fire."
Max
Just curious...
Consider the following...
One cannot rely solely on the scientific method to study 911, because 911 is not a scientific problem;
911 is a teleological problem.
Does anyone here understand what this means?
Max
(Note that this statement contradicts my claim that what initiated the collapse of the towers is the most important scientific question on earth today. The contradiction is an expedient. If I say "most important teleological question", no one will understand a word.)
Consider the following...
One cannot rely solely on the scientific method to study 911, because 911 is not a scientific problem;
911 is a teleological problem.
Does anyone here understand what this means?
Max
(Note that this statement contradicts my claim that what initiated the collapse of the towers is the most important scientific question on earth today. The contradiction is an expedient. If I say "most important teleological question", no one will understand a word.)
.
Max Photon.
That's it? That's all your speculations reduce to? No answer to my last post and the bleedin' obvious that your speculations expediently ignore?
You're right there. You have no science to bring to the table. Pity.
RC.
.
Max Photon.
That's it? That's all your speculations reduce to? No answer to my last post and the bleedin' obvious that your speculations expediently ignore?
You're right there. You have no science to bring to the table. Pity.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 07:25 PM)
CC,
You seemed to imply that the society of engineers examined WTC2 Column 301/81 specifically.
I understand you are saying they pondered the metal fire. But did they physically secure and examine Column 301/81?
Max
Yes, they took the original samples and focused on the damage area they viewed all the steel before it was released, and had the blue prints and he data.
You seemed to imply that the society of engineers examined WTC2 Column 301/81 specifically.
I understand you are saying they pondered the metal fire. But did they physically secure and examine Column 301/81?
Max
Yes, they took the original samples and focused on the damage area they viewed all the steel before it was released, and had the blue prints and he data.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jan 5 2008, 09:00 PM)
Yes, they took the original samples and focused on the damage area they viewed all the steel before it was released, and had the blue prints and he data.
So what happened to 301?
So what happened to 301?
Max Photon,
I don't know about all the politics or religious views on 9/11, but I do know that the laws of physics state that explosives were used to bring the tower down, NOT MAYBE, but in fact were used and there is no debating that issue at least on a scientific level, because of the speed of the fall of the buildings alone. It defies the most basic law of physics to suggest that the towers could descend and hit the ground as fast as objects fall through air.
Free fall means objects that fall WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION, and the fact is the WTC buildings fell at virtual free-fall speed, (as fast as objects fall through the air, un-obstructed)
So even if one were going to try and sell the pancake theory they would not be successful due to the fact that the buildings fell at virtual free-fall speed. This is not only obvious, but it's an insult to people's intelligence when people try to suggest otherwise.
The only legitimate question one needs to ask is why people are so persistent at trying to prove an impossible theory? It seems that there must some underlying motive, but if we stick with the laws of science and physics then one must conclude the buildings collapsed via control demolition, NOT MAYBE, but they had, otherwise it would be impossible.
Is this a physics discussion board or a political place where people try to sell impossible make believe stories about pancake theories that defy logic and common sense
I don't know about all the politics or religious views on 9/11, but I do know that the laws of physics state that explosives were used to bring the tower down, NOT MAYBE, but in fact were used and there is no debating that issue at least on a scientific level, because of the speed of the fall of the buildings alone. It defies the most basic law of physics to suggest that the towers could descend and hit the ground as fast as objects fall through air.
Free fall means objects that fall WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION, and the fact is the WTC buildings fell at virtual free-fall speed, (as fast as objects fall through the air, un-obstructed)
So even if one were going to try and sell the pancake theory they would not be successful due to the fact that the buildings fell at virtual free-fall speed. This is not only obvious, but it's an insult to people's intelligence when people try to suggest otherwise.
The only legitimate question one needs to ask is why people are so persistent at trying to prove an impossible theory? It seems that there must some underlying motive, but if we stick with the laws of science and physics then one must conclude the buildings collapsed via control demolition, NOT MAYBE, but they had, otherwise it would be impossible.
Is this a physics discussion board or a political place where people try to sell impossible make believe stories about pancake theories that defy logic and common sense
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 5 2008, 08:50 PM)
.
Max Photon.
That's it? That's all your speculations reduce to? No answer to my last post and the bleedin' obvious that your speculations expediently ignore?
You're right there. You have no science to bring to the table. Pity.
RC.
.
To be honest RealityCheck, your posts just seem badgering, so I haven't really been taking them seriously.
Plus, there is only one of me to answer your and others' questions, and yours seem tertiary in their degree of relevance.
Put those together, and you can see why I haven't been answering you.
Max
Max Photon.
That's it? That's all your speculations reduce to? No answer to my last post and the bleedin' obvious that your speculations expediently ignore?
You're right there. You have no science to bring to the table. Pity.
RC.
.
To be honest RealityCheck, your posts just seem badgering, so I haven't really been taking them seriously.
Plus, there is only one of me to answer your and others' questions, and yours seem tertiary in their degree of relevance.
Put those together, and you can see why I haven't been answering you.
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 01:30 PM)
... thermite (or some incendiary) to heat-weaken steel connections...
I'm glad your big enough to say probable.
Mine is identical.
You have yet to demonstrate this is possible, even in a laboratory setting.
NIST says probable collapse scenario. Too bad you have not bothered to read it. (Also, I'm a Bayesian, remember?)
No, it is not. Yours requires a long list of highly unlikely (next to impossible) events:
(1) Remote controlled aircraft, when there are none.
(2) Two missing 767s, when there are none.
(3) Addition of incendiaries despite the certainty of detection by guards/janitors/maintenance men.
(4) The ability to set off the incendiaries despite the damage.
(5) The ability of all the actors to keep silent.
Nope. Too unlikely to bother to consider.
I'm glad your big enough to say probable.
Mine is identical.
You have yet to demonstrate this is possible, even in a laboratory setting.
NIST says probable collapse scenario. Too bad you have not bothered to read it. (Also, I'm a Bayesian, remember?)
No, it is not. Yours requires a long list of highly unlikely (next to impossible) events:
(1) Remote controlled aircraft, when there are none.
(2) Two missing 767s, when there are none.
(3) Addition of incendiaries despite the certainty of detection by guards/janitors/maintenance men.
(4) The ability to set off the incendiaries despite the damage.
(5) The ability of all the actors to keep silent.
Nope. Too unlikely to bother to consider.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jan 5 2008, 04:00 PM)
Yes, they took the original samples and focused on the damage area they viewed all the steel before it was released, and had the blue prints and he data.
Could you provide a source for this statement (that they located and examined that SPECIFIC column from WTC2)?
Thanks
Arthur
Could you provide a source for this statement (that they located and examined that SPECIFIC column from WTC2)?
Thanks
Arthur
QUOTE (debbie77+Jan 5 2008, 02:05 PM)
... because of the speed of the fall of the buildings alone.
On this matter I am expert. I have used actual measurements of the drop of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 to determine the best (but necessarily approximate) accelerations to use in such discussions:
WTC 1: (2/3)g
WTC 2: (3/4)g
In both cases this demonstrates resistance to the force of gravity.
On this matter I am expert. I have used actual measurements of the drop of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 to determine the best (but necessarily approximate) accelerations to use in such discussions:
WTC 1: (2/3)g
WTC 2: (3/4)g
In both cases this demonstrates resistance to the force of gravity.
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.