QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 16 2005, 06:21 AM)
QUOTE
Typical to focus on mistakes?
Yes. No one is given room to admit one, and if they make one, and- God forbid- ACTUALLY ADMIT IT, as YOU have not, and retract the statement, then they come in for abuse of this kind. "Hypocrisy" coming from you? After that? I don't think I need to say anything else.
Again, you made no mistake . You lied to cover a lie. Simple.
And then you attempt to turn it around by stating that I have not admitted a mistake.
And how's this quote for constructive commentary:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Typical to focus on mistakes? |
Yes. No one is given room to admit one, and if they make one, and- God forbid- ACTUALLY ADMIT IT, as YOU have not, and retract the statement, then they come in for abuse of this kind.
"Hypocrisy" coming from you? After that? I don't think I need to say anything else.
Again, you made no mistake . You lied to cover a lie. Simple.
And then you attempt to turn it around by stating that I have not admitted a mistake.
And how's this quote for constructive commentary:
I think you guys should focus on the fundamentals.
"Hypocrisy" coming from you? After that? I don't think I need to say anything else.
Again, you made no mistake . You lied to cover a lie. Simple.
And then you attempt to turn it around by stating that I have not admitted a mistake.
And how's this quote for constructive commentary:
I think you guys should focus on the fundamentals.
QUOTE (Schneibster+ Dec 15 2005, 11:27 PM)
OK. Fundamentally, you're an idiot.
After reading that idiotic post, one need not say anything else.
After reading that idiotic post, one need not say anything else.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 16 2005, 06:33 AM)
I can cut/paste from most Adobe PDFs.
The NIST doc has a yellow key on the bottom and its properties say no copying is allowed.
Don't know of any software that will get around this.
Anyone?
Arthur
Ehhhhh ???
Can you post the link to the document you are referring to and page number?, and I will see if I can capture the 'point' you are trying to make.
The NIST doc has a yellow key on the bottom and its properties say no copying is allowed.
Don't know of any software that will get around this.
Anyone?
Arthur
Ehhhhh ???
Can you post the link to the document you are referring to and page number?, and I will see if I can capture the 'point' you are trying to make.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 16 2005, 06:33 AM)
I can cut/paste from most Adobe PDFs.
The NIST doc has a yellow key on the bottom and its properties say no copying is allowed.
Don't know of any software that will get around this.
Anyone?
Arthur
i wonder why NIST did that? silly.
take a screen cap, print it, and then scan it with OCR software.
The NIST doc has a yellow key on the bottom and its properties say no copying is allowed.
Don't know of any software that will get around this.
Anyone?
Arthur
i wonder why NIST did that? silly.
take a screen cap, print it, and then scan it with OCR software.
QUOTE
Again, you made no mistake .
Ummm, I admitted as much. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, you made no mistake . |
Ummm, I admitted as much.
And then you attempt to turn it around by stating that I have not admitted a mistake.
And then you attempt to turn it around by stating that I have not admitted a mistake.
You have? Where?
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 16 2005, 06:41 AM)
Ridicule is the second step- the one after that is vindication.
Sheesh...
NO
Wrong Again, Schneibster (ol' pal) RE: Truth
Ridicule is the 1st step
Anger & slander is the second...
And then, we all agree that 'we knew it all along'.
Sheesh...
NO
Wrong Again, Schneibster (ol' pal) RE: Truth
Ridicule is the 1st step
Anger & slander is the second...
And then, we all agree that 'we knew it all along'.
No, Faux, YOU CLAIM you knew it all along. I admit I made a mistake and move on.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 16 2005, 06:47 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 16 2005, 06:33 AM)
I can cut/paste from most Adobe PDFs.
The NIST doc has a yellow key on the bottom and its properties say no copying is allowed.
Don't know of any software that will get around this.
Anyone?
Arthur
i wonder why NIST did that? silly.
take a screen cap, print it, and then scan it with OCR software.
If you are posting in this thread I have to assume you have a copy of the NIST FINAL Document.
Reference is page 13, "The workplace"
I'm on the road, no access to a scanner, printer or OCR software and even at home that's too damn much work to post a piece from a document we ALL should have our own copy of.
It ain't like I'm referencing some obscure document, its the NIST FINAL document on the WTC towers that we are referencing ALL the damn time.
Arthur
The NIST doc has a yellow key on the bottom and its properties say no copying is allowed.
Don't know of any software that will get around this.
Anyone?
Arthur
i wonder why NIST did that? silly.
take a screen cap, print it, and then scan it with OCR software.
If you are posting in this thread I have to assume you have a copy of the NIST FINAL Document.
Reference is page 13, "The workplace"
I'm on the road, no access to a scanner, printer or OCR software and even at home that's too damn much work to post a piece from a document we ALL should have our own copy of.
It ain't like I'm referencing some obscure document, its the NIST FINAL document on the WTC towers that we are referencing ALL the damn time.
Arthur
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 16 2005, 06:56 AM)
No, Faux, YOU CLAIM you knew it all along. I admit I made a mistake and move on.
Seems 'my' claims have recently been 'backed-up' by your own statements.
Seems 'my' claims have recently been 'backed-up' by your own statements.
Faux never made any mistakes, it "knew it all along."
Uh huh.
Uh huh.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 16 2005, 07:06 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 16 2005, 06:47 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 16 2005, 06:33 AM)
I can cut/paste from most Adobe PDFs.
The NIST doc has a yellow key on the bottom and its properties say no copying is allowed.
Don't know of any software that will get around this.
Anyone?
Arthur
i wonder why NIST did that? silly.
take a screen cap, print it, and then scan it with OCR software.
If you are posting in this thread I have to assume you have a copy of the NIST FINAL Document.
Reference is page 13, "The workplace"
I'm on the road, no access to a scanner, printer or OCR software and even at home that's too damn much work to post a piece from a document we ALL should have our own copy of.
It ain't like I'm referencing some obscure document, its the NIST FINAL document on the WTC towers that we are referencing ALL the damn time.
Arthur
Uhhhh?
Which 'final report' are we referring to?
The public draft report? The final draft report? The draft of the final draft report? The Oct final draft? The Nov final draft? The sometime next year final draft of the draft FINAL report?
The NIST doc has a yellow key on the bottom and its properties say no copying is allowed.
Don't know of any software that will get around this.
Anyone?
Arthur
i wonder why NIST did that? silly.
take a screen cap, print it, and then scan it with OCR software.
If you are posting in this thread I have to assume you have a copy of the NIST FINAL Document.
Reference is page 13, "The workplace"
I'm on the road, no access to a scanner, printer or OCR software and even at home that's too damn much work to post a piece from a document we ALL should have our own copy of.
It ain't like I'm referencing some obscure document, its the NIST FINAL document on the WTC towers that we are referencing ALL the damn time.
Arthur
Uhhhh?
Which 'final report' are we referring to?
The public draft report? The final draft report? The draft of the final draft report? The Oct final draft? The Nov final draft? The sometime next year final draft of the draft FINAL report?
QUOTE (knew tonne+Dec 16 2005, 06:42 AM)
well. maybe the jet fuel had korans in it. that would explain everything.
does nist say jet fuel went down the elevator shafts? (no)
does nist say jet fuel exploded in the basement? (no)
does the nist report say most of the fuel burnt up quickly, and was not responsible for anything other than igniting other flammable materials in the building? (yes)
does the fema report state that some steel was corroded/evaporated by chemical reaction? (yes)
so, why are you defenders of the official story not just citing the nist report? why are you refuting it? it cost a lot of money, you know! they had, like, the very best eggheads in america, ya know. yeah. that's right. and they had WAY more evidence then you defenders of the lie. nist, man. they're just great.
so, what's it gonna be? is the nist report right, or not, bushites?
'cause, if not, then shouldn't we all be SCREAMING for access to the evidence that has not yet been illegally destroyed, and an open investigation into what REALLY happened?
and if it is right, then you should stop making stuff up about magical jet fuel, and whatnot. you can't have it both ways. either the report is good, (which it REALLY should be, i mean it took years and cost millions of dollars), or it's a lie. which is it?
let's see those blueprints. put them online.
and all the video evidence from the pentagon, and the towers.
and let's lift the gag order that stops firemen from giving their opinions about explosions. and let's see who got rich of american airlines stock.
and let's see who authorised americans to assassinate americans with us military anthrax.
let's see the original passenger lists for all four planes. let's see the computer simulation that duplicates the 'typical runaway collapse'.
chickens. bawk, bawk.
how come you shills aren't busy collecting one million dollars over at reopen911.com?
Heh...
Hilarious, yet words to the wise.
does nist say jet fuel went down the elevator shafts? (no)
does nist say jet fuel exploded in the basement? (no)
does the nist report say most of the fuel burnt up quickly, and was not responsible for anything other than igniting other flammable materials in the building? (yes)
does the fema report state that some steel was corroded/evaporated by chemical reaction? (yes)
so, why are you defenders of the official story not just citing the nist report? why are you refuting it? it cost a lot of money, you know! they had, like, the very best eggheads in america, ya know. yeah. that's right. and they had WAY more evidence then you defenders of the lie. nist, man. they're just great.
so, what's it gonna be? is the nist report right, or not, bushites?
'cause, if not, then shouldn't we all be SCREAMING for access to the evidence that has not yet been illegally destroyed, and an open investigation into what REALLY happened?
and if it is right, then you should stop making stuff up about magical jet fuel, and whatnot. you can't have it both ways. either the report is good, (which it REALLY should be, i mean it took years and cost millions of dollars), or it's a lie. which is it?
let's see those blueprints. put them online.
and all the video evidence from the pentagon, and the towers.
and let's lift the gag order that stops firemen from giving their opinions about explosions. and let's see who got rich of american airlines stock.
and let's see who authorised americans to assassinate americans with us military anthrax.
let's see the original passenger lists for all four planes. let's see the computer simulation that duplicates the 'typical runaway collapse'.
chickens. bawk, bawk.
how come you shills aren't busy collecting one million dollars over at reopen911.com?
Heh...
Hilarious, yet words to the wise.
The one that says "final report" on the link, perhaps? Another lie brought to you by Faux: "NIST keeps changing their story."
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 16 2005, 07:34 AM)
The one that says "final report" on the link, perhaps? Another lie brought to you by Faux: "NIST keeps changing their story."
Schneibster, ol' buddy... I have yet to see you address any of the following...how about at least 'attempting' to address it?
------------------
Thanks, Schneibster ... now read again Mike Pecararos statement...
Thanks, Schneibster ... now read again Mike Pecararos statement...
At about 6:45 he went to the mechanical shop in the second subbasement...the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke...
...When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
An interesting choice of words...'gone' - could be taken as 'strewn about', I suppose...but more likely refers to the 'blown to pieces'.
Now the word 'rubble' seems far more likely to mean blown to bits'.
Now the word 'rubble' seems far more likely to mean blown to bits'.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said.
And this is the most convincing yet when someone is talking about parking garage walls turned to 'rubble'.
Concrete parking garage walls are not just 'moved about', nor or they turned to 'rubble' by a fuel atomization explosion UNLESS it is truly a 'thermobarbic weapon' as theorized by adoucette... (highly unlikely that a thermobarbic weapon was randomly developed by this sentient fuel while making its way to the basement). As Pecararo speaks of concrete walls being turned to 'rubble', I think it is quite rational to conclude that they were not just 'thrown about' (to use your term), but rather 'shattered' (as per your other term). To Quote YOUR words again...
It appears you are supporting our contention by your own statement.
Now let us not forget that this 'explosion' not only issued forth in the basement levels, but also on the ground level lobby, which brings as around again to the question that all the 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters wish to avoid, that being...
the 'SHATTERING' of 3" thick glass windows in the lobby. Do you get the impression from Yasana Mutuanot's description of this "fireball filled with sand & heat" that it just threw these three story windows about?...
It appears you are supporting our contention by your own statement.
Now let us not forget that this 'explosion' not only issued forth in the basement levels, but also on the ground level lobby, which brings as around again to the question that all the 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters wish to avoid, that being...
the 'SHATTERING' of 3" thick glass windows in the lobby. Do you get the impression from Yasana Mutuanot's description of this "fireball filled with sand & heat" that it just threw these three story windows about?...
The lobby windows shattered as she stumbled out of the building and fell.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/spec...termath/1051698
So... now according to your terms, you have switched sides and support the fact that the explosion was ...
quote: "most likely a high explosive"?
There are a couple of other discrepancies which you seem to be glossing over...
1Yasana Mutuanot describes this 'explosion' as issuing forth from a 'freight elevator' at the lobby level. We know that there were (IIRC) 10 freight elevators which ascended from the basement levels ONLY to the level of the lobby. These were designed to bring 'supplies' from the basement delivery landings to the lobby, where they would be transferred to freight elevators which went to the 2nd and 3rd skylobby levels where they would be transferred to elevators which took them to the proper destination floor.
IF the 'explosion' issued from one of these basement-ground-level-to-lobby elevators, we can certainly assume that the lobby explosion was originating from the basement (because neither these elevators, nor the shafts they were in rose to the impact zone).
2We are told that there were no survivors from above the aircraft impact level of WTC 1, but the case of Mary Baldizzi disproves this...
Interview with Mary Baldizzi, WTC 1 survivor who was located on the 104th floor of the building when it was hit by Flight 11...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...ry.baldizzi.wmv
How did she escape?
WRH postulates that she escaped down the one freight elevator which went from the basement level to the 108th floor, as it has been reported that NONE of the passenger elevators were working.
However, this presents a bit of a conundrum for both sides in this issue.
I believe the postulation of WRH is in error, because we know that Arturo Griffith was the operator of that one freight elevator, and apparently when the plane impacted it cut the cables to that car and sent Arturo and a passenger into a free-fall down to the basement levels...
SO... Baldizzi could NOT have escaped by the express freight elevator which ran from the basement to the 108th floor.
Further evidence says that when the freight elevator crashed at the basement sub-levels Arturo's knee was shattered by the imploding door. Now... bear in mind that when the aircraft impacted it cut the freight elevator cables, and it crashed into the basement.
Some time after the impact Arturo and his passenger were rescued. Obviously this did not happen within seconds... some time (probably minutes passed) before their rescue. Arturo does not recall who rescued him, but we know that after Rodriguez rescued David and took him to safety that he went back into the building and assisted with many other rescues. Perhaps, it was he who helped rescue Arturo? IF SO, then this was AFTER taking David to safety... and AFTER his experience of feeling the explosion beneath him, as well as saving the burned David (whom had been burned by the 'explosion'). This was logically well after the initial 'explosion' that Rodriguez (and others spoke of).
So HOW did Baldizzi escape from the 104th floor? The only other possible elevator she could have taken was the passenger express elevator which ran from the lobby to the 108th floor.
This presents a conundrum for the 'thermobarbic explosion crew'.
According to MOST published reports, ALL passenger elevators were 'out of commission' after the impact. IF SO, then how did Baldizzi escape...
IF... BY the ONLY other elevator which ran from the top of the building to the ground level through one connected shaft (the express passenger lift)... and IF this Amazing Magical thermobarbic atomization of fuel went down connected shafts to the ground level lobby and basement levels, THEN, it must have been highly intelligent (and sentient) fuel to pick and choose ONLY ONE of these shafts to atomize in and avoid the other (to spare Baldizzi).
This, of course, is just a minor point compared to the 'shattering' of 3" window glass(as reported by Mutuanot) ... and the 'shattering' of concrete walls in the basement parking garage (as reported by Pecararo).
I'm sorry, but the 'jet-fuel explosions' in the basement is just NOT adding up on the 'logical scale' (even according to your own definitions).
---------------
Give us your spin. Simply stating that these are all 'Lies by Faux' don't quite work. We're not all teenagers trying to escape from homework here. You are trying to avoid and change the topic... (typical of shills).
Address the post above. Thanks
It's interesting that the WTCs have a hollow vertical shaft running from the basement to the top. Golly gee, Wilbur, that might be an interesting thing to exploit. Do ya think? How about taking a look at the latest developments from our boys at livermore. Your not gonna find that stuff on google. Nobody peeks at those cards, they're our ace in the hole. Three parameters of a nuclear reaction are blast, fallout and temperature(K). They need the cleanest heat nuke with the smallest, possible, blast potential. Tactical conventional explosives can cut off the legs. They want to create a plasma blast furnace effect in the elevators shafts to weaken the central support structure. Now geniuses, work backwards and find the device that can do that. Reverse engineering. WE know how the movie ends so lets extrapolate our way back to the beginning.
Another speculative post that, understandably, drew no attention. I was behind the curve on fuel-air reactions and I knew micro-nukes were over the top. 40+ pages back, I was hoping someone would suggest something more appropriate. Now, better late then never, thermo-baric devices are what I was looking for. Unfortunately, the "keepers' have already hijacked it and turned it into a "magic bullet" theory. Non-optimum fuel, no aeriolization, no oxidizer but of course another perfect event. Every thing about 911 is so miraculously- perfect. The "magic blast" theory will now be used to compensate for every weakness in the official story.
I was trying to suggest, back in the thread, that the elevator shafts were the achilles heel of the building. Any speculation about assisted collapse, needed to be focused their. While this is probably too little-too late, I find it interesting that thermo-baric reactions can and do break the sound barrier. Those "Eyewitness", video tapes, that captured periodic booms, make speculative sense to me now. Could they have been sound barrier violations from thermo-baric reactions traversing the many elevator shafts in the south tower? Sonic booms have a distinct audio signature. What did we hear on that video tape? Low frequency rumblings like so many sonic booms? Audio analysis anyone?
It's interesting that the WTCs have a hollow vertical shaft running from the basement to the top. Golly gee, Wilbur, that might be an interesting thing to exploit. Do ya think? How about taking a look at the latest developments from our boys at livermore. Your not gonna find that stuff on google. Nobody peeks at those cards, they're our ace in the hole. Three parameters of a nuclear reaction are blast, fallout and temperature(K). They need the cleanest heat nuke with the smallest, possible, blast potential. Tactical conventional explosives can cut off the legs. They want to create a plasma blast furnace effect in the elevators shafts to weaken the central support structure. Now geniuses, work backwards and find the device that can do that. Reverse engineering. WE know how the movie ends so lets extrapolate our way back to the beginning.
Another speculative post that understandably drew no attention. I was behind the curve on fuel-air reactions and I knew micro-nukes were over the top. 40+ pages back, I was hoping someone would suggest something more appropriate. Now, better late then never, thermo-baric devices are what I was looking for. Unfortunately, the "keepers' have hijacked it and turned it into a "magic bullet" theory. Non-optimum fuel, no aeriolization, no oxidizer but of course another perfect event. Every thing about 911 is so miraculously- perfect. The "magic blast" theory will now be used to compensate for every weakness in the official story.
I was trying to suggest back in the thread, that the elevator shafts were the achilles heel of the building. Any speculation about assisted collapse, needed to be focused their. While this is probably too little-too late, I find it interesting that thermo-baric reactions can and do break the sound barrier. Those eyewitness video tapes that captured those periodic booms make speculative sense to me now. Sonic booms from thermo-baric reactions traversing the many elevator shafts in the south tower? Sonic booms have an audio signature. What did we hear on that video tape? Low frequency, sonic boom like rumblings? Audio analysis anyone.
Zoktoberfest...
I also thought of the 'possible' use of thermo-baric system, and it is an interesting postulation.
The 'problem' I see with this is that, the central core was NOT a 'hollow open shaft' (like a chimney which ran from the basement levels to the top).
Except for a very few shafts (the express passenger and express freight elevator shafts) which were open conduits from base to top; the rest of the central core was separated into 'zones' which were sealed off from other 'zones', so that fuel-air/thermo-baric explosions systems would not work to destroy the internal core structure as a unit...
Although (perhaps), IF a thermo-baric explosion (capable of structural damage) was set off in the basement levels... This could 'explain' some of the witness reports... and theoretically could 'compromise' the structural integrity of core columns...
(Although I highly doubt that any conventional 'fuel-air' 'explosion' could produce sufficient energy to cut columns made of 5" thick steel plate? )
As Schneibster has rightly pointed out though... a 'typical' high-explosive device does NOT account for burn injuries, such as suffered by David and others in the basement levels.
Whatever caused the 'explosive' blast effects to shatter concrete walls (in the parking garage)... and the blast wave which shattered 3" thick lobby glass... (IMHO)also contained (or produced) a flame/fireball effect.
I'm definately not an 'explosives expert', so I can't postulate what that might have been.
However, there must be an answer to this question which provides for BOTH high explosive + high heat signatures.
This fuel-air explosive mix (thermobaric weapons) 'answer' just doesn't quite 'work' (for me).
Schneibster, ol' buddy... I have yet to see you address any of the following...how about at least 'attempting' to address it?
------------------
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion.
Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion.
Thanks, Schneibster ... now read again Mike Pecararos statement...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Schneibster Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion. |
Thanks, Schneibster ... now read again Mike Pecararos statement...
At about 6:45 he went to the mechanical shop in the second subbasement...the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke...
...When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
An interesting choice of words...'gone' - could be taken as 'strewn about', I suppose...but more likely refers to the 'blown to pieces'.
QUOTE
“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!”
Now the word 'rubble' seems far more likely to mean blown to bits'.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” |
Now the word 'rubble' seems far more likely to mean blown to bits'.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said.
And this is the most convincing yet when someone is talking about parking garage walls turned to 'rubble'.
Concrete parking garage walls are not just 'moved about', nor or they turned to 'rubble' by a fuel atomization explosion UNLESS it is truly a 'thermobarbic weapon' as theorized by adoucette... (highly unlikely that a thermobarbic weapon was randomly developed by this sentient fuel while making its way to the basement). As Pecararo speaks of concrete walls being turned to 'rubble', I think it is quite rational to conclude that they were not just 'thrown about' (to use your term), but rather 'shattered' (as per your other term). To Quote YOUR words again...
QUOTE
Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion.
It appears you are supporting our contention by your own statement.
Now let us not forget that this 'explosion' not only issued forth in the basement levels, but also on the ground level lobby, which brings as around again to the question that all the 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters wish to avoid, that being...
the 'SHATTERING' of 3" thick glass windows in the lobby. Do you get the impression from Yasana Mutuanot's description of this "fireball filled with sand & heat" that it just threw these three story windows about?...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion. |
It appears you are supporting our contention by your own statement.
Now let us not forget that this 'explosion' not only issued forth in the basement levels, but also on the ground level lobby, which brings as around again to the question that all the 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters wish to avoid, that being...
the 'SHATTERING' of 3" thick glass windows in the lobby. Do you get the impression from Yasana Mutuanot's description of this "fireball filled with sand & heat" that it just threw these three story windows about?...
The lobby windows shattered as she stumbled out of the building and fell.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/spec...termath/1051698
So... now according to your terms, you have switched sides and support the fact that the explosion was ...
quote: "most likely a high explosive"?
There are a couple of other discrepancies which you seem to be glossing over...
1Yasana Mutuanot describes this 'explosion' as issuing forth from a 'freight elevator' at the lobby level. We know that there were (IIRC) 10 freight elevators which ascended from the basement levels ONLY to the level of the lobby. These were designed to bring 'supplies' from the basement delivery landings to the lobby, where they would be transferred to freight elevators which went to the 2nd and 3rd skylobby levels where they would be transferred to elevators which took them to the proper destination floor.
IF the 'explosion' issued from one of these basement-ground-level-to-lobby elevators, we can certainly assume that the lobby explosion was originating from the basement (because neither these elevators, nor the shafts they were in rose to the impact zone).
2We are told that there were no survivors from above the aircraft impact level of WTC 1, but the case of Mary Baldizzi disproves this...
Interview with Mary Baldizzi, WTC 1 survivor who was located on the 104th floor of the building when it was hit by Flight 11...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...ry.baldizzi.wmv
How did she escape?
WRH postulates that she escaped down the one freight elevator which went from the basement level to the 108th floor, as it has been reported that NONE of the passenger elevators were working.
However, this presents a bit of a conundrum for both sides in this issue.
I believe the postulation of WRH is in error, because we know that Arturo Griffith was the operator of that one freight elevator, and apparently when the plane impacted it cut the cables to that car and sent Arturo and a passenger into a free-fall down to the basement levels...
QUOTE
Arturo was running 50A, the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor. When American Airlines Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m., Arturo and a co-worker were heading from the second-level basement to the 49th floor...Arturo heard a sudden whistling sound and the impact. Cables were severed and Arturo's car plunged into free fall.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-09-10-surivivor-griffiths_x.htmSO... Baldizzi could NOT have escaped by the express freight elevator which ran from the basement to the 108th floor.
Further evidence says that when the freight elevator crashed at the basement sub-levels Arturo's knee was shattered by the imploding door. Now... bear in mind that when the aircraft impacted it cut the freight elevator cables, and it crashed into the basement.
Some time after the impact Arturo and his passenger were rescued. Obviously this did not happen within seconds... some time (probably minutes passed) before their rescue. Arturo does not recall who rescued him, but we know that after Rodriguez rescued David and took him to safety that he went back into the building and assisted with many other rescues. Perhaps, it was he who helped rescue Arturo? IF SO, then this was AFTER taking David to safety... and AFTER his experience of feeling the explosion beneath him, as well as saving the burned David (whom had been burned by the 'explosion'). This was logically well after the initial 'explosion' that Rodriguez (and others spoke of).
So HOW did Baldizzi escape from the 104th floor? The only other possible elevator she could have taken was the passenger express elevator which ran from the lobby to the 108th floor.
This presents a conundrum for the 'thermobarbic explosion crew'.
According to MOST published reports, ALL passenger elevators were 'out of commission' after the impact. IF SO, then how did Baldizzi escape...
IF... BY the ONLY other elevator which ran from the top of the building to the ground level through one connected shaft (the express passenger lift)... and IF this Amazing Magical thermobarbic atomization of fuel went down connected shafts to the ground level lobby and basement levels, THEN, it must have been highly intelligent (and sentient) fuel to pick and choose ONLY ONE of these shafts to atomize in and avoid the other (to spare Baldizzi).
This, of course, is just a minor point compared to the 'shattering' of 3" window glass(as reported by Mutuanot) ... and the 'shattering' of concrete walls in the basement parking garage (as reported by Pecararo).
I'm sorry, but the 'jet-fuel explosions' in the basement is just NOT adding up on the 'logical scale' (even according to your own definitions).
---------------
Give us your spin. Simply stating that these are all 'Lies by Faux' don't quite work. We're not all teenagers trying to escape from homework here. You are trying to avoid and change the topic... (typical of shills).
Address the post above. Thanks
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Nov 22 2005, 11:42 PM)
It's interesting that the WTCs have a hollow vertical shaft running from the basement to the top. Golly gee, Wilbur, that might be an interesting thing to exploit. Do ya think? How about taking a look at the latest developments from our boys at livermore. Your not gonna find that stuff on google. Nobody peeks at those cards, they're our ace in the hole. Three parameters of a nuclear reaction are blast, fallout and temperature(K). They need the cleanest heat nuke with the smallest, possible, blast potential. Tactical conventional explosives can cut off the legs. They want to create a plasma blast furnace effect in the elevators shafts to weaken the central support structure. Now geniuses, work backwards and find the device that can do that. Reverse engineering. WE know how the movie ends so lets extrapolate our way back to the beginning.
Another speculative post that, understandably, drew no attention. I was behind the curve on fuel-air reactions and I knew micro-nukes were over the top. 40+ pages back, I was hoping someone would suggest something more appropriate. Now, better late then never, thermo-baric devices are what I was looking for. Unfortunately, the "keepers' have already hijacked it and turned it into a "magic bullet" theory. Non-optimum fuel, no aeriolization, no oxidizer but of course another perfect event. Every thing about 911 is so miraculously- perfect. The "magic blast" theory will now be used to compensate for every weakness in the official story.
I was trying to suggest, back in the thread, that the elevator shafts were the achilles heel of the building. Any speculation about assisted collapse, needed to be focused their. While this is probably too little-too late, I find it interesting that thermo-baric reactions can and do break the sound barrier. Those "Eyewitness", video tapes, that captured periodic booms, make speculative sense to me now. Could they have been sound barrier violations from thermo-baric reactions traversing the many elevator shafts in the south tower? Sonic booms have a distinct audio signature. What did we hear on that video tape? Low frequency rumblings like so many sonic booms? Audio analysis anyone?
Foxx, you know very well that there were two freight elevators that serviced the 104th floor.
We've discussed it at length. Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.
Deliberate deception or incredibly bad memory? Only you can answer that.
----------
• Car #5: B1-5, 7, 9-40, 44
• Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107
• Car #17: B1-1, 41, 43-78
• Car #48: B1-7, 9-40
• Car #49: B1-5, 41-74
• Car #50: B6-108
• Car #99: 107-110
There were two express elevators to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2.
pg 34 (adobe pg 72)
NIST NCSTAR 1-7 (Draft)
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications (Draft)
We've discussed it at length. Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.
Deliberate deception or incredibly bad memory? Only you can answer that.
----------
• Car #5: B1-5, 7, 9-40, 44
• Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107
• Car #17: B1-1, 41, 43-78
• Car #48: B1-7, 9-40
• Car #49: B1-5, 41-74
• Car #50: B6-108
• Car #99: 107-110
There were two express elevators to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2.
pg 34 (adobe pg 72)
NIST NCSTAR 1-7 (Draft)
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications (Draft)
QUOTE (knew tonne+Dec 16 2005, 06:42 AM)
well. maybe the jet fuel had korans in it. that would explain everything.
does nist say jet fuel went down the elevator shafts? (no)
does nist say jet fuel exploded in the basement? (no)
does the nist report say most of the fuel burnt up quickly, and was not responsible for anything other than igniting other flammable materials in the building? (yes)
knew tonne,
If you search "elevator shafts" in the same document I referred Foxx to.....
....you'll find out that you're wrong on all three counts.
does nist say jet fuel went down the elevator shafts? (no)
does nist say jet fuel exploded in the basement? (no)
does the nist report say most of the fuel burnt up quickly, and was not responsible for anything other than igniting other flammable materials in the building? (yes)
knew tonne,
If you search "elevator shafts" in the same document I referred Foxx to.....
....you'll find out that you're wrong on all three counts.
QUOTE
Foxx, you know very well that there were two freight elevators that serviced the 104th floor.
We've discussed it at length. Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.
Deliberate deception or incredibly bad memory? Only you can answer that.
Well, Coastal, welcome in. My goodness. It looks like you've done all sorts of research- not to mention been thoroughly trolled by our local menace. I don't think there's any question of bad memory.
We've discussed it at length. Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.
Deliberate deception or incredibly bad memory? Only you can answer that.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Dec 16 2005, 08:02 AM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Nov 22 2005, 11:42 PM)
It's interesting that the WTCs have a hollow vertical shaft running from the basement to the top. Golly gee, Wilbur, that might be an interesting thing to exploit. Do ya think? How about taking a look at the latest developments from our boys at livermore. Your not gonna find that stuff on google. Nobody peeks at those cards, they're our ace in the hole. Three parameters of a nuclear reaction are blast, fallout and temperature(K). They need the cleanest heat nuke with the smallest, possible, blast potential. Tactical conventional explosives can cut off the legs. They want to create a plasma blast furnace effect in the elevators shafts to weaken the central support structure. Now geniuses, work backwards and find the device that can do that. Reverse engineering. WE know how the movie ends so lets extrapolate our way back to the beginning.
Another speculative post that understandably drew no attention. I was behind the curve on fuel-air reactions and I knew micro-nukes were over the top. 40+ pages back, I was hoping someone would suggest something more appropriate. Now, better late then never, thermo-baric devices are what I was looking for. Unfortunately, the "keepers' have hijacked it and turned it into a "magic bullet" theory. Non-optimum fuel, no aeriolization, no oxidizer but of course another perfect event. Every thing about 911 is so miraculously- perfect. The "magic blast" theory will now be used to compensate for every weakness in the official story.
I was trying to suggest back in the thread, that the elevator shafts were the achilles heel of the building. Any speculation about assisted collapse, needed to be focused their. While this is probably too little-too late, I find it interesting that thermo-baric reactions can and do break the sound barrier. Those eyewitness video tapes that captured those periodic booms make speculative sense to me now. Sonic booms from thermo-baric reactions traversing the many elevator shafts in the south tower? Sonic booms have an audio signature. What did we hear on that video tape? Low frequency, sonic boom like rumblings? Audio analysis anyone.
Zoktoberfest...
I also thought of the 'possible' use of thermo-baric system, and it is an interesting postulation.
The 'problem' I see with this is that, the central core was NOT a 'hollow open shaft' (like a chimney which ran from the basement levels to the top).
Except for a very few shafts (the express passenger and express freight elevator shafts) which were open conduits from base to top; the rest of the central core was separated into 'zones' which were sealed off from other 'zones', so that fuel-air/thermo-baric explosions systems would not work to destroy the internal core structure as a unit...
Although (perhaps), IF a thermo-baric explosion (capable of structural damage) was set off in the basement levels... This could 'explain' some of the witness reports... and theoretically could 'compromise' the structural integrity of core columns...
(Although I highly doubt that any conventional 'fuel-air' 'explosion' could produce sufficient energy to cut columns made of 5" thick steel plate? )
As Schneibster has rightly pointed out though... a 'typical' high-explosive device does NOT account for burn injuries, such as suffered by David and others in the basement levels.
Whatever caused the 'explosive' blast effects to shatter concrete walls (in the parking garage)... and the blast wave which shattered 3" thick lobby glass... (IMHO)also contained (or produced) a flame/fireball effect.
I'm definately not an 'explosives expert', so I can't postulate what that might have been.
However, there must be an answer to this question which provides for BOTH high explosive + high heat signatures.
This fuel-air explosive mix (thermobaric weapons) 'answer' just doesn't quite 'work' (for me).
Faux, if you had showed the least sign of good faith, if you had even once admitted that you might be wrong, if you hadn't lied over a hundred times (and it looks like it's a lot more than that, considering what Coastal's brought to the table), or if you had ever shown the slightest interest in actually finding out what happened as opposed to the course you have taken, I might actually seriously answer your post. Problem is, you lie, you cheat, you obfuscate, you conveniently "forget" well-established facts, you avoid, and you have no honor, no integrity, and, worst of all, NO NEW INFORMATION. You repeat the same things over and over, despite being answered in definitive terms with definitive information. You present a "fact" that has been rebutted countless times before as if it were the latest and most fatal flaw in someone's argument.
Are you ever going to do anything different? Are you actually interested in finding out what happened? I don't think so. I don't think you can help yourself. I think you are more interested in the conflict than in the truth, and you'll do whatever you need to in order to keep that conflict alive. I don't know whether you're taking money from one of the "truth" sites to keep their sales up, or whether you're just a complete troll; and I'm frankly beyond caring. I'm doing precisely what I told you I'd do, which is to point out on every page that you are a liar. If you want me to stop, you have two choices:
1. Stop lying.
2. Go away.
Are you ever going to do anything different? Are you actually interested in finding out what happened? I don't think so. I don't think you can help yourself. I think you are more interested in the conflict than in the truth, and you'll do whatever you need to in order to keep that conflict alive. I don't know whether you're taking money from one of the "truth" sites to keep their sales up, or whether you're just a complete troll; and I'm frankly beyond caring. I'm doing precisely what I told you I'd do, which is to point out on every page that you are a liar. If you want me to stop, you have two choices:
1. Stop lying.
2. Go away.
QUOTE (Coastal+Dec 16 2005, 08:48 AM)
QUOTE (knew tonne+Dec 16 2005, 06:42 AM)
well. maybe the jet fuel had korans in it. that would explain everything.
does nist say jet fuel went down the elevator shafts? (no)
does nist say jet fuel exploded in the basement? (no)
does the nist report say most of the fuel burnt up quickly, and was not responsible for anything other than igniting other flammable materials in the building? (yes)
knew tonne,
If you search "elevator shafts" in the same document I referred Foxx to.....
....you'll find out that you're wrong on all three counts.
sorry.
you're right. they say 30%-50% burned up in the fireballs, and wtc1 had a fireball going down the elevator shafts and blowing out doors and plate glass as low as the concourse level. i was confused. information overload. . perhaps i was remembering an earlier draught.
there is only one elevator shaft as an available route. the freight express elevator.
now, i believe we had someone here who works with fuel tanks, and he said that a 10, 000 gallon tank is about the size of an office.
so, does that much kerosene, five to seven thousand gallons, or half an office's worth, really have the potential energy to both create the spectacular fireball, and blow out elevator doors and plate glass windows in the lobby, and then still spread out over 40000 sq ft?
i don't buy that 30 to 50 percent either. it was travelling 500 miles an hour. the forward momentum would be incredible. it would be mostly droplets which would burn within seconds, as WITNESSED by the massive fireball.
for wtc one, because it flew directly at the core, i could see fuel slashing down shafts.
why then were there not fire on MANY floors? if this burning jet fuel was flowing down elevator shafts, why didn't the sky lobby's burn?
for wtc two, it missed the core, and the initial fireball was MASSIVE.
nist states that only three samples reached a temperature of about 250 degrees celsius. and they say, that works because they weren't predicted to be that hot. maybe they don't know what a heat sink is, either.
maybe they don't know that, is you want to measure the temperature of something to see if it matches your prediction, then you should get a sample from the area your predicting about.
maybe they should think that if these steel samples weren't acting according to prediction, then there is something wrong with their model.
none of the steel samples reached a temperature higher than 600 degrees celsius for more than fifteen minutes(i think this is what i'm refering to, as far as the jet fuel spending most of it's energy quickly. that and they said they sprayed jet fuel on office furniture, and it burned within 'a few minutes', and office furniture burns out in about a half an hour, ecept jet fuel accelerates this).
then they start reporting simulation numbers MUCH higher. 750 for forty five minutes. 1000 near the ceilings.
their empirical evidence does not match their fancy dancey computer models, and the jet fuel argument doesn't stack up.
i need to read the report, again. it's been a while, and it just makes me angry.
i give it a D.
HAHAHA !... looks like in your desperate hope for alliances ol Schneiby (anyone will do) The Quack has you completely buffaloed. Stick around and you will see just how valid the 'research' of the Quack is.
HAHAHA !... looks like in your desperate hope for alliances ol Schneiby (anyone will do) The Quack has you completely buffaloed. Stick around and you will see just how valid the 'research' of the Quack is.
Originally posted by the Quack
Foxx, you know very well that there were two freight elevators that serviced the 104th floor.
We've discussed it at length. Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.
Deliberate deception or incredibly bad memory? Only you can answer that.
• Car #5: B1-5, 7, 9-40, 44
• Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107
• Car #17: B1-1, 41, 43-78
• Car #48: B1-7, 9-40
• Car #49: B1-5, 41-74
• Car #50: B6-108
• Car #99: 107-110
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf
Heh... Quack, you seem to have forgotten my previous answer to the last time you pulled this obfuscation. (or is it just deliberate deception?).
Now, how about remembering what you always leave out in your above obfuscating 'quote'.
From the NIST report...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/wtcelevators.html
Then why does NIST include Car #6 in the list of freight elevators?
Because...like I said...(and as reported in the NIST document in parentheses - which you left out to serve your purpose)... it was a 'dual-use express elevator'. It's main role was a passenger express elevator which is the term most reports (including Otis) refers to it as. This was one of the two passenger express elevators which ran from the base to the Windows on the World restaurant in WTC 1.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/wtcelevators.html
Then why does NIST include Car #6 in the list of freight elevators?
Because...like I said...(and as reported in the NIST document in parentheses - which you left out to serve your purpose)... it was a 'dual-use express elevator'. It's main role was a passenger express elevator which is the term most reports (including Otis) refers to it as. This was one of the two passenger express elevators which ran from the base to the Windows on the World restaurant in WTC 1.
There were two express elevators (#6 and #7) to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1...
It is true that I had forgotten there were two of these 'passenger express elevators' when I stated that ...
"The only other possible elevator she could have taken was the passenger express elevator which ran from the lobby to the 108th floor."
So, I was wrong there.
However, because the ONLY freight express elevator (Car 50 - which Arturo was in), had had it's cables snapped by the initial impact... the point was that she must have taken (one of) the passenger express elevators.
This does nothing to solve the conundrum you face, and in fact exacerbates it. Now, instead of there being ONLY two shafts which ran from the base to the top, there were THREE.
Once again...
Truly amazing that this waterfall of atomizing jet-fuel was smart enough to avoid the shaft which Baldizzi was in. The "thermobarbic crew" wishes us to believe that jet-fuel in a liquid state flowing throughout the impact zone somehow was merciful enough to spare Baldizzi. Heh... believe that if you like, and try to convince other fools of such nonsense, but I'm not buying it any more than magical passports or endless supplies of korans turning up everywhere you need one.
Now Schneibster, ol' buddy... I'm sure you would dearly love for me to "Go Away". It must be truly frustrating for you that I keep pointing out your mistakes, but I guess you'll just have to learn to live with it.
Now, why don't you quit avoiding your latest fiasco and tell us about your statement that...
Truly amazing that this waterfall of atomizing jet-fuel was smart enough to avoid the shaft which Baldizzi was in. The "thermobarbic crew" wishes us to believe that jet-fuel in a liquid state flowing throughout the impact zone somehow was merciful enough to spare Baldizzi. Heh... believe that if you like, and try to convince other fools of such nonsense, but I'm not buying it any more than magical passports or endless supplies of korans turning up everywhere you need one.
Now Schneibster, ol' buddy... I'm sure you would dearly love for me to "Go Away". It must be truly frustrating for you that I keep pointing out your mistakes, but I guess you'll just have to learn to live with it.
Now, why don't you quit avoiding your latest fiasco and tell us about your statement that...
Originally posted by Schneibster
Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion.
...and remind us how, although the 3" thick lobby glass, and concrete parking garage walls were shattered (according to your pope-ish statement) HOW, this is NOT evidence of "most likely a high explosive".
I'm sure many of us are sitting on the edge of our seats just waiting for you to answer that one. Better work up a good story, because the question is not going to go away, even if I have to keep asking til page 10,000.
While you're at it, please explain why you have abandoned your own quote from OTIS...(in favor of the Quacks obfuscation)?
In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor.
http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344...S1_SEC5,00.html
What? You've suddenly found more affection for the Quack, than OTIS?
Or is it that you just realized that the one freight elevator that they referred to (the one express freight elevator) didn't quite serve the purposes you were trying to get away with?
More NIST Shenanigans...
Above is a picture from the NIST draft WTC 7 report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf
(from pg 17)
Below is a schematic of how NIST portrays the damage to the south face of WTC 7. Note the extent of damage to the southwest corner in the diagram. (pg 20 of the above report)
Now note the alleged large gaping hole in the center of the south face, (which NIST tells us was done by falling debris from WTC 1).
NIST tells us that there was a... "large debris hole near center around 14th floor". Looking at the photo above we can see the southwest corner damage. We know that; that damage extended to the 18th floor. (page 15 of the above report)
The NIST-alleged massive center damage should clearly be visible in the above photo (allegedly being only 4 floors below the height of the southwest corner damage).
Can you find the alleged damage which NIST indicates is in the center of the south face?
FEMA told us ...
"The degree of impact damage to the south facade could not be documented. However damage was evident from review of photographs and video records"
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
On Aug 21 2002 Dr. Shyam Sunder (of NIST) put out a special call for...
"...photograhic and video images that could help us better document the initial damage and subsequent fire growth and spread in the WTC towers and WTC 7. We are especially interested in WTC 7 and views of the South and West faces of the towers. Those who are aware of or who are in possession of such materials are encouraged to contact us."
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/sunderremarks.htm
It seems no one has come forward, since 2002 with any better photographs of the South face of WTC 7 than the one above which shows only southwest corner damage and no center damage as indicated by the NIST schematic in their 2005 document .
Where does NIST get the idea that there was massive damage to the center of the south face of WTC 7 ?
Apparently NIST claims one source is the testimonial evidence provided by firefighters on the scene.
According to 'Firehouse.com', (a relatively new fire-related magazine)... Captain Chris Boyle was there, and relates his story in an interview format...
" We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 and there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fires on several floors."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
It seems obvious that Captain Boyle was referring to the southwest corner damage, because that is the only damage apparent in the NIST photo which extends to a height of 18 - 20 stories.
I have not been able to find any photos or videos of the south face of WTC 7, nor any firefighter testimony which supports the idea of massive damage to the center of the south face as purported in the NIST schematic of alleged impact damage.
Apart from NIST providing factual evidence to support their story that there was massive damage to the center of the south face of WTC 7, I would have to conclude that their report is in error. Is NIST claiming that; it is this 'alleged' (apparently non-existent) damage which was contributory to the collapse of WTC 7 ?
thought I'd revisit this.
From the article in Firehouse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boyle:...So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good...
Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post...
So, very early on after the collapse of WTC 1 there was great concern about the condition of WTC 7. Also, despite Foxx's attempts to say it ain't so, Boyle does come right out and state, "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
Foxx also tries to claim that the prominent side of WTC7 shown in this picture is the south side.
Obviously though it is the west side. If it were the south side then west would be on the opposite corner from where the damage is. Furthermore the building in the foreground is the Verizon building which is west of WTC 7.
Yes, you admitted a mistake. But what you wrote wasn't a mistake, it was a lie. Which part of this are you not understanding that doubtless everyone else seems to?
Admit you lied, son, and then we can move on.
Originally posted by YID
Also, despite Foxx's attempts to say it ain't so, Boyle does come right out and state, "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
Dyslexia causing reading comprehension problems now YID? Are you still trying to find some way to 'prove' that Boyle allegedly claimed there was a hole in the middle of the south face of WTC 7?
Your Boyle quote from Firehouse was an answer to a question from Firehouse which was...
I don't have to stretch sophistry and semantics to understand that when Firehouse asks the question the 'IT' referred to, was the fire in the hole
You are really desperately stretching credulity to imply that when Boyle answers this direct question that... when he says "right in the middle of it"... he is no longer referring to the fire in the hole, but rather the location of the hole on the face of the building.
... let me clarify for you Boyles quote in context...
I don't have to stretch sophistry and semantics to understand that when Firehouse asks the question the 'IT' referred to, was the fire in the hole
You are really desperately stretching credulity to imply that when Boyle answers this direct question that... when he says "right in the middle of it"... he is no longer referring to the fire in the hole, but rather the location of the hole on the face of the building.
... let me clarify for you Boyles quote in context...
"There was a huge gaping hole and 'it' (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say 'it' (THE FIRE IN THE HOLE) was probably about a third of 'it' (THE HOLE), right in the middle of 'it' (THE HOLE)."
Sheesh...Damn sophist obfuscators will try anything to twist the words of witnesses towards their own preconceived notions.
It is obvious to anyone who understands the english language and 'context' that when Boyle says "right in the middle of it" he wasn't referring to the location of the hole in the south face.
Originally posted by YID
Also, despite Foxx's attempts to say it ain't so, Boyle does come right out and state, "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
Dyslexia causing reading comprehension problems now YID? Are you still trying to find some way to 'prove' that Boyle allegedly claimed there was a hole in the middle of the south face of WTC 7?
Your Boyle quote from Firehouse was an answer to a question from Firehouse which was...
I don't have to stretch sophistry and semantics to understand that when Firehouse asks the question the 'IT' referred to, was the fire in the hole
You are really desperately stretching credulity to imply that when Boyle answers this direct question that... when he says "right in the middle of it"... he is no longer referring to the fire in the hole, but rather the location of the hole on the face of the building.
... let me clarify for you Boyles quote in context...
I don't have to stretch sophistry and semantics to understand that when Firehouse asks the question the 'IT' referred to, was the fire in the hole
You are really desperately stretching credulity to imply that when Boyle answers this direct question that... when he says "right in the middle of it"... he is no longer referring to the fire in the hole, but rather the location of the hole on the face of the building.
... let me clarify for you Boyles quote in context...
"There was a huge gaping hole and 'it' (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say 'it' (THE FIRE IN THE HOLE) was probably about a third of 'it' (THE HOLE), right in the middle of 'it' (THE HOLE)."
Sheesh...Damn sophist obfuscators will try anything to twist the words of witnesses towards their own preconceived notions.
It is obvious to anyone who understands the english language and 'context' that when Boyle says "right in the middle of it" he wasn't referring to the location of the hole in the south face.
Really Foxx?
Then you admit also that when Silverstein says
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.(the attempt to contain the fire)' And they made that decision to pull(the attempt to contain the fire) and we watched the building collapse."
Back to Boyle, my read of the statement is;
"There was a huge gaping hole and it (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it (THE HOLE) was probably about a third of it (THE BUILDING), right in the middle of it (THE BUILDING)."
He has already stated that the fire was "scattered" throughout the hole. Your reading would have him contradicting this and stating that the fire in the hole was in the center of the hole and covering about a third of the hole.
Furthermore I notice that you completely and thoroughly manage to ignore that Boyle and several others comment that the building looks bad, unsafe, not straight and that they had decieded at that point, very soon after WTC1 collapsed, that going into WTC 7 was a bad idea.
No, you would have everyone believe that the building was in great shape except for a few missing windows, a few raging fires on many floors and a 12 story chunk missing from one corner. Oh, never mind those groaning and creaking sounds or walls that are no longer plumb, minor details. A little spit and polish, it'd be good as new.
Thermobaric bombs...!!! Thermobaric bombs...!!! (he says waving his hands about.
IF the fireball was a 'thermobaric bomb' which could shatter 3" thick window glass 95 stories below the point of impact, please explain why the much larger 'thermobaric bomb' at the point of impact didn't explode out every single 1/4" window on the impact floors with this great thermobaric overpressure.
Man, someone posts a link to thermobaric bombs and suddenly these idiots have latched onto it like a new toy. Thermobaric overpressures 95 stories below in huge open spaces... same thing as 'magical passports' and 'never-ending korans' (to me), but carry on with your fantasies. It's quite comical watching you dance.
As far as the 50 ton press, I am well aware that it did not weigh 50 tons - it was simply a 50 ton hydraulic press. So what? Whether it weighed 2 tons or 5 tons a jet-fuel fireball (which is NOT a thermobaric weapon) is not going to 'move it about'. Pecararo said it was 'gone'. where did it go? Don't tell me, I know... the thermobaric bomb melted it, Right? Maybe that's where the molten metal in the basement came from.
Now lets see your magical dance about the disappearing / 'turned to rubble' concrete walls in the parking garage. Did the thermobaric bomb melt those too?
For number of elevators (and shafts) which went from the base to the tops of the towers... see my post regarding that...
does nist say jet fuel went down the elevator shafts? (no)
does nist say jet fuel exploded in the basement? (no)
does the nist report say most of the fuel burnt up quickly, and was not responsible for anything other than igniting other flammable materials in the building? (yes)
knew tonne,
If you search "elevator shafts" in the same document I referred Foxx to.....
....you'll find out that you're wrong on all three counts.
sorry.
you're right. they say 30%-50% burned up in the fireballs, and wtc1 had a fireball going down the elevator shafts and blowing out doors and plate glass as low as the concourse level. i was confused. information overload. . perhaps i was remembering an earlier draught.
there is only one elevator shaft as an available route. the freight express elevator.
now, i believe we had someone here who works with fuel tanks, and he said that a 10, 000 gallon tank is about the size of an office.
so, does that much kerosene, five to seven thousand gallons, or half an office's worth, really have the potential energy to both create the spectacular fireball, and blow out elevator doors and plate glass windows in the lobby, and then still spread out over 40000 sq ft?
i don't buy that 30 to 50 percent either. it was travelling 500 miles an hour. the forward momentum would be incredible. it would be mostly droplets which would burn within seconds, as WITNESSED by the massive fireball.
for wtc one, because it flew directly at the core, i could see fuel slashing down shafts.
why then were there not fire on MANY floors? if this burning jet fuel was flowing down elevator shafts, why didn't the sky lobby's burn?
for wtc two, it missed the core, and the initial fireball was MASSIVE.
nist states that only three samples reached a temperature of about 250 degrees celsius. and they say, that works because they weren't predicted to be that hot. maybe they don't know what a heat sink is, either.
maybe they don't know that, is you want to measure the temperature of something to see if it matches your prediction, then you should get a sample from the area your predicting about.
maybe they should think that if these steel samples weren't acting according to prediction, then there is something wrong with their model.
none of the steel samples reached a temperature higher than 600 degrees celsius for more than fifteen minutes(i think this is what i'm refering to, as far as the jet fuel spending most of it's energy quickly. that and they said they sprayed jet fuel on office furniture, and it burned within 'a few minutes', and office furniture burns out in about a half an hour, ecept jet fuel accelerates this).
then they start reporting simulation numbers MUCH higher. 750 for forty five minutes. 1000 near the ceilings.
their empirical evidence does not match their fancy dancey computer models, and the jet fuel argument doesn't stack up.
i need to read the report, again. it's been a while, and it just makes me angry.
i give it a D.
QUOTE (Galileo+Oct 12 2005, 05:27 AM)
By conservation of energy, a destructive collapse from above at anywhere near free-fall speeds is impossible. Otherwise, parachutes wouldn't work.
You'd have to be retarded not to grasp this - I guess.
You'd have to be retarded not to grasp this - I guess.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Well, Coastal, welcome in. My goodness. It looks like you've done all sorts of research
Well, Coastal, welcome in. My goodness. It looks like you've done all sorts of research
HAHAHA !... looks like in your desperate hope for alliances ol Schneiby (anyone will do)
The Quack has you completely buffaloed. Stick around and you will see just how valid the 'research' of the Quack is.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Schneibster Well, Coastal, welcome in. My goodness. It looks like you've done all sorts of research |
HAHAHA !... looks like in your desperate hope for alliances ol Schneiby (anyone will do)
The Quack has you completely buffaloed. Stick around and you will see just how valid the 'research' of the Quack is.Originally posted by the Quack
Foxx, you know very well that there were two freight elevators that serviced the 104th floor.
We've discussed it at length. Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.
Deliberate deception or incredibly bad memory? Only you can answer that.
• Car #5: B1-5, 7, 9-40, 44
• Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107
• Car #17: B1-1, 41, 43-78
• Car #48: B1-7, 9-40
• Car #49: B1-5, 41-74
• Car #50: B6-108
• Car #99: 107-110
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf
Heh... Quack, you seem to have forgotten my previous answer to the last time you pulled this obfuscation. (or is it just deliberate deception?).
Now, how about remembering what you always leave out in your above obfuscating 'quote'.
From the NIST report...
QUOTE
In addition to the passenger elevators, there were seven freight elevators in each tower, most served a particular zone, while Car 50 served every floor.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/wtcelevators.html
Then why does NIST include Car #6 in the list of freight elevators?
Because...like I said...(and as reported in the NIST document in parentheses - which you left out to serve your purpose)... it was a 'dual-use express elevator'. It's main role was a passenger express elevator which is the term most reports (including Otis) refers to it as. This was one of the two passenger express elevators which ran from the base to the Windows on the World restaurant in WTC 1.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In addition to the passenger elevators, there were seven freight elevators in each tower, most served a particular zone, while Car 50 served every floor. |
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/wtcelevators.html
Then why does NIST include Car #6 in the list of freight elevators?
Because...like I said...(and as reported in the NIST document in parentheses - which you left out to serve your purpose)... it was a 'dual-use express elevator'. It's main role was a passenger express elevator which is the term most reports (including Otis) refers to it as. This was one of the two passenger express elevators which ran from the base to the Windows on the World restaurant in WTC 1.
There were two express elevators (#6 and #7) to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1...
It is true that I had forgotten there were two of these 'passenger express elevators' when I stated that ...
"The only other possible elevator she could have taken was the passenger express elevator which ran from the lobby to the 108th floor."
So, I was wrong there.
However, because the ONLY freight express elevator (Car 50 - which Arturo was in), had had it's cables snapped by the initial impact... the point was that she must have taken (one of) the passenger express elevators.
This does nothing to solve the conundrum you face, and in fact exacerbates it. Now, instead of there being ONLY two shafts which ran from the base to the top, there were THREE.
Once again...
QUOTE
posted by Foxx
IF this Amazing Magical thermobarbic atomization of fuel went down connected shafts to the ground level lobby and basement levels, THEN, it must have been highly intelligent (and sentient) fuel to pick and choose ONLY ONE of these shafts to atomize in and avoid the other (to spare Baldizzi).
IF this Amazing Magical thermobarbic atomization of fuel went down connected shafts to the ground level lobby and basement levels, THEN, it must have been highly intelligent (and sentient) fuel to pick and choose ONLY ONE of these shafts to atomize in and avoid the other (to spare Baldizzi).
Truly amazing that this waterfall of atomizing jet-fuel was smart enough to avoid the shaft which Baldizzi was in. The "thermobarbic crew" wishes us to believe that jet-fuel in a liquid state flowing throughout the impact zone somehow was merciful enough to spare Baldizzi. Heh... believe that if you like, and try to convince other fools of such nonsense, but I'm not buying it any more than magical passports or endless supplies of korans turning up everywhere you need one.
Now Schneibster, ol' buddy... I'm sure you would dearly love for me to "Go Away". It must be truly frustrating for you that I keep pointing out your mistakes, but I guess you'll just have to learn to live with it.
Now, why don't you quit avoiding your latest fiasco and tell us about your statement that...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| posted by Foxx IF this Amazing Magical thermobarbic atomization of fuel went down connected shafts to the ground level lobby and basement levels, THEN, it must have been highly intelligent (and sentient) fuel to pick and choose ONLY ONE of these shafts to atomize in and avoid the other (to spare Baldizzi). |
Truly amazing that this waterfall of atomizing jet-fuel was smart enough to avoid the shaft which Baldizzi was in. The "thermobarbic crew" wishes us to believe that jet-fuel in a liquid state flowing throughout the impact zone somehow was merciful enough to spare Baldizzi. Heh... believe that if you like, and try to convince other fools of such nonsense, but I'm not buying it any more than magical passports or endless supplies of korans turning up everywhere you need one.
Now Schneibster, ol' buddy... I'm sure you would dearly love for me to "Go Away". It must be truly frustrating for you that I keep pointing out your mistakes, but I guess you'll just have to learn to live with it.
Now, why don't you quit avoiding your latest fiasco and tell us about your statement that...
Originally posted by Schneibster
Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion.
...and remind us how, although the 3" thick lobby glass, and concrete parking garage walls were shattered (according to your pope-ish statement) HOW, this is NOT evidence of "most likely a high explosive".
I'm sure many of us are sitting on the edge of our seats just waiting for you to answer that one. Better work up a good story, because the question is not going to go away, even if I have to keep asking til page 10,000.
While you're at it, please explain why you have abandoned your own quote from OTIS...(in favor of the Quacks obfuscation)?
QUOTE
In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor.
http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344...S1_SEC5,00.html
What? You've suddenly found more affection for the Quack, than OTIS?
Or is it that you just realized that the one freight elevator that they referred to (the one express freight elevator) didn't quite serve the purposes you were trying to get away with?
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 18 2005, 08:09 PM)
QUOTE
Replies posted by Schneibster
You mean other than the 20-story hole in the side facing the WTC towers?...
I really would like to see a picture of the south face of the building with that hole in it, or with it absent and giving the lie to the firemen's accounts.
You mean other than the 20-story hole in the side facing the WTC towers?...
I really would like to see a picture of the south face of the building with that hole in it, or with it absent and giving the lie to the firemen's accounts.
More NIST Shenanigans...
Above is a picture from the NIST draft WTC 7 report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf
(from pg 17)
Below is a schematic of how NIST portrays the damage to the south face of WTC 7. Note the extent of damage to the southwest corner in the diagram. (pg 20 of the above report)
Now note the alleged large gaping hole in the center of the south face, (which NIST tells us was done by falling debris from WTC 1).
NIST tells us that there was a... "large debris hole near center around 14th floor". Looking at the photo above we can see the southwest corner damage. We know that; that damage extended to the 18th floor. (page 15 of the above report)
The NIST-alleged massive center damage should clearly be visible in the above photo (allegedly being only 4 floors below the height of the southwest corner damage).
Can you find the alleged damage which NIST indicates is in the center of the south face?
FEMA told us ...
"The degree of impact damage to the south facade could not be documented. However damage was evident from review of photographs and video records"
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
On Aug 21 2002 Dr. Shyam Sunder (of NIST) put out a special call for...
"...photograhic and video images that could help us better document the initial damage and subsequent fire growth and spread in the WTC towers and WTC 7. We are especially interested in WTC 7 and views of the South and West faces of the towers. Those who are aware of or who are in possession of such materials are encouraged to contact us."
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/sunderremarks.htm
It seems no one has come forward, since 2002 with any better photographs of the South face of WTC 7 than the one above which shows only southwest corner damage and no center damage as indicated by the NIST schematic in their 2005 document .
Where does NIST get the idea that there was massive damage to the center of the south face of WTC 7 ?
Apparently NIST claims one source is the testimonial evidence provided by firefighters on the scene.
According to 'Firehouse.com', (a relatively new fire-related magazine)... Captain Chris Boyle was there, and relates his story in an interview format...
" We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 and there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fires on several floors."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
It seems obvious that Captain Boyle was referring to the southwest corner damage, because that is the only damage apparent in the NIST photo which extends to a height of 18 - 20 stories.
I have not been able to find any photos or videos of the south face of WTC 7, nor any firefighter testimony which supports the idea of massive damage to the center of the south face as purported in the NIST schematic of alleged impact damage.
Apart from NIST providing factual evidence to support their story that there was massive damage to the center of the south face of WTC 7, I would have to conclude that their report is in error. Is NIST claiming that; it is this 'alleged' (apparently non-existent) damage which was contributory to the collapse of WTC 7 ?
thought I'd revisit this.
From the article in Firehouse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boyle:...So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good...
Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post...
So, very early on after the collapse of WTC 1 there was great concern about the condition of WTC 7. Also, despite Foxx's attempts to say it ain't so, Boyle does come right out and state, "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
Foxx also tries to claim that the prominent side of WTC7 shown in this picture is the south side.
Obviously though it is the west side. If it were the south side then west would be on the opposite corner from where the damage is. Furthermore the building in the foreground is the Verizon building which is west of WTC 7.
Re: thermobaric style explosion.
The original thermobaric bombs were designed to knock down and kill 'soft' targets such as barracks buildings, light vehicles and, of course, people. they did not do much more than scorch hardened structures.
However newer devives were wedded to penetrating warheads which then puts the thermobaric bomb inside the building. The resultant overpressure is quite lethal.
The overpressure developed by any air-fuel explosion will , by neccessity , find its way out through all possible routes. This would include window. Whether they be 3" thick or not, windows will still be an easier route than any solid exterior wall.
The telling thing about the description by survivors is that they lived. The overpressure of a high explosive is sharper though not necessarily greater than that of a fuel explosion. The human body can take the overpressure better than it can take a fast moving wave of overpressure. If this were a high explosive the people would have been torn apart by the sharp, fast overpressure while a slower buildup of that overpressure allows the body to adjust to it. That is because bodies are soft and pliable. Glass is stiff and when an overpressure gets high enough it just shatters since it cannot bend(much).
One has to love Foxx's penchant for putting words into others mouths.
Boyle meant the SW corner, for instance. Now others say the word "gone" and they, according to Foxx, meant , "blown to bits". Furthermore we are told, by Foxx, that any reference to "rubble" means, "blown to bits".
It should be pointed out to those who may be misled that a 50 Ton press is one that can exert 50 tons of pressure on the workface. It does not weigh 50 tons!
Regarding elevators. Are you confused now Foxx. Do you now say there are 1,2 or 3 elevators that went from the basement to the upper floors? You swore up and down that there was only one for a long time but now there seems to be at least 2.
Concerning what they are called i would assume that if it was dual purpose then what it is referred to as will depend on who you talk to. Some will call it a freight elevator, others will call it a pasenger elevator and some will call it a passenger and freight elevator. What bloody difference does it make?
The original thermobaric bombs were designed to knock down and kill 'soft' targets such as barracks buildings, light vehicles and, of course, people. they did not do much more than scorch hardened structures.
However newer devives were wedded to penetrating warheads which then puts the thermobaric bomb inside the building. The resultant overpressure is quite lethal.
The overpressure developed by any air-fuel explosion will , by neccessity , find its way out through all possible routes. This would include window. Whether they be 3" thick or not, windows will still be an easier route than any solid exterior wall.
The telling thing about the description by survivors is that they lived. The overpressure of a high explosive is sharper though not necessarily greater than that of a fuel explosion. The human body can take the overpressure better than it can take a fast moving wave of overpressure. If this were a high explosive the people would have been torn apart by the sharp, fast overpressure while a slower buildup of that overpressure allows the body to adjust to it. That is because bodies are soft and pliable. Glass is stiff and when an overpressure gets high enough it just shatters since it cannot bend(much).
One has to love Foxx's penchant for putting words into others mouths.
Boyle meant the SW corner, for instance. Now others say the word "gone" and they, according to Foxx, meant , "blown to bits". Furthermore we are told, by Foxx, that any reference to "rubble" means, "blown to bits".
It should be pointed out to those who may be misled that a 50 Ton press is one that can exert 50 tons of pressure on the workface. It does not weigh 50 tons!
Regarding elevators. Are you confused now Foxx. Do you now say there are 1,2 or 3 elevators that went from the basement to the upper floors? You swore up and down that there was only one for a long time but now there seems to be at least 2.
Concerning what they are called i would assume that if it was dual purpose then what it is referred to as will depend on who you talk to. Some will call it a freight elevator, others will call it a pasenger elevator and some will call it a passenger and freight elevator. What bloody difference does it make?
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 16 2005, 06:51 AM)
QUOTE
Again, you made no mistake .
Ummm, I admitted as much. Yes, you admitted a mistake. But what you wrote wasn't a mistake, it was a lie. Which part of this are you not understanding that doubtless everyone else seems to?
Admit you lied, son, and then we can move on.
QUOTE
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. |
Originally posted by YID
Also, despite Foxx's attempts to say it ain't so, Boyle does come right out and state, "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
Dyslexia causing reading comprehension problems now YID? Are you still trying to find some way to 'prove' that Boyle allegedly claimed there was a hole in the middle of the south face of WTC 7?
Your Boyle quote from Firehouse was an answer to a question from Firehouse which was...
QUOTE
When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
I don't have to stretch sophistry and semantics to understand that when Firehouse asks the question the 'IT' referred to, was the fire in the hole
You are really desperately stretching credulity to imply that when Boyle answers this direct question that... when he says "right in the middle of it"... he is no longer referring to the fire in the hole, but rather the location of the hole on the face of the building.
... let me clarify for you Boyles quote in context...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? |
I don't have to stretch sophistry and semantics to understand that when Firehouse asks the question the 'IT' referred to, was the fire in the hole
You are really desperately stretching credulity to imply that when Boyle answers this direct question that... when he says "right in the middle of it"... he is no longer referring to the fire in the hole, but rather the location of the hole on the face of the building.
... let me clarify for you Boyles quote in context...
"There was a huge gaping hole and 'it' (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say 'it' (THE FIRE IN THE HOLE) was probably about a third of 'it' (THE HOLE), right in the middle of 'it' (THE HOLE)."
Sheesh...Damn sophist obfuscators will try anything to twist the words of witnesses towards their own preconceived notions.
It is obvious to anyone who understands the english language and 'context' that when Boyle says "right in the middle of it" he wasn't referring to the location of the hole in the south face.
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 16 2005, 07:04 PM)
Heh... Quack, you seem to have forgotten my previous answer to the last time you pulled this obfuscation. (or is it just deliberate deception?).
Now, how about remembering what you always leave out in your above obfuscating 'quote'.
From the NIST report...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/wtcelevators.html
Then why does NIST include Car #6 in the list of freight elevators?
Because...like I said...(and as reported in the NIST document in parentheses - which you left out to serve your purpose)... it was a 'dual-use express elevator'. It's main role was a passenger express elevator which is the term most reports (including Otis) refers to it as. This was one of the two passenger express elevators which ran from the base to the Windows on the World restaurant in WTC 1.
Nice try, Foxx. How long did it take you to slap that web page together? Do you understand that you have trapped yourself in yet another lie by doing so.
There have been some changes in the final NIST report. What you have forgotten while concocting this lie, is that the final report wasn't released when we had our discussion almost 4 months ago. The information on your 'web site' was unavailable to either of us.
We were working from the draft. You know this, yet you try to tell this forum that I have altered a NIST document. This is a deliberate deception and you know it.
The changes and proof of your deception are on adobe page 72 in both of the documents below:
Final report released in October http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf
Draft report released in June http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf
The fact remains that two freight elevators serviced the 104th floor. NIST now tells us that one was dual purpose? Golly!
Your right. Schniebster.
Another Foxx post.
Another lie.
Now, how about remembering what you always leave out in your above obfuscating 'quote'.
From the NIST report...
QUOTE
In addition to the passenger elevators, there were seven freight elevators in each tower, most served a particular zone, while Car 50 served every floor.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/wtcelevators.html
Then why does NIST include Car #6 in the list of freight elevators?
Because...like I said...(and as reported in the NIST document in parentheses - which you left out to serve your purpose)... it was a 'dual-use express elevator'. It's main role was a passenger express elevator which is the term most reports (including Otis) refers to it as. This was one of the two passenger express elevators which ran from the base to the Windows on the World restaurant in WTC 1.
Nice try, Foxx. How long did it take you to slap that web page together? Do you understand that you have trapped yourself in yet another lie by doing so.
There have been some changes in the final NIST report. What you have forgotten while concocting this lie, is that the final report wasn't released when we had our discussion almost 4 months ago. The information on your 'web site' was unavailable to either of us.
We were working from the draft. You know this, yet you try to tell this forum that I have altered a NIST document. This is a deliberate deception and you know it.
The changes and proof of your deception are on adobe page 72 in both of the documents below:
Final report released in October http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf
Draft report released in June http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf
The fact remains that two freight elevators serviced the 104th floor. NIST now tells us that one was dual purpose? Golly!
Your right. Schniebster.
Another Foxx post.
Another lie.
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 16 2005, 08:51 PM)
QUOTE
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. |
Originally posted by YID
Also, despite Foxx's attempts to say it ain't so, Boyle does come right out and state, "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
Dyslexia causing reading comprehension problems now YID? Are you still trying to find some way to 'prove' that Boyle allegedly claimed there was a hole in the middle of the south face of WTC 7?
Your Boyle quote from Firehouse was an answer to a question from Firehouse which was...
QUOTE
When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
I don't have to stretch sophistry and semantics to understand that when Firehouse asks the question the 'IT' referred to, was the fire in the hole
You are really desperately stretching credulity to imply that when Boyle answers this direct question that... when he says "right in the middle of it"... he is no longer referring to the fire in the hole, but rather the location of the hole on the face of the building.
... let me clarify for you Boyles quote in context...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? |
I don't have to stretch sophistry and semantics to understand that when Firehouse asks the question the 'IT' referred to, was the fire in the hole
You are really desperately stretching credulity to imply that when Boyle answers this direct question that... when he says "right in the middle of it"... he is no longer referring to the fire in the hole, but rather the location of the hole on the face of the building.
... let me clarify for you Boyles quote in context...
"There was a huge gaping hole and 'it' (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say 'it' (THE FIRE IN THE HOLE) was probably about a third of 'it' (THE HOLE), right in the middle of 'it' (THE HOLE)."
Sheesh...Damn sophist obfuscators will try anything to twist the words of witnesses towards their own preconceived notions.
It is obvious to anyone who understands the english language and 'context' that when Boyle says "right in the middle of it" he wasn't referring to the location of the hole in the south face.
Really Foxx?
Then you admit also that when Silverstein says
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.(the attempt to contain the fire)' And they made that decision to pull(the attempt to contain the fire) and we watched the building collapse."
Back to Boyle, my read of the statement is;
"There was a huge gaping hole and it (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it (THE HOLE) was probably about a third of it (THE BUILDING), right in the middle of it (THE BUILDING)."
He has already stated that the fire was "scattered" throughout the hole. Your reading would have him contradicting this and stating that the fire in the hole was in the center of the hole and covering about a third of the hole.
Furthermore I notice that you completely and thoroughly manage to ignore that Boyle and several others comment that the building looks bad, unsafe, not straight and that they had decieded at that point, very soon after WTC1 collapsed, that going into WTC 7 was a bad idea.
No, you would have everyone believe that the building was in great shape except for a few missing windows, a few raging fires on many floors and a 12 story chunk missing from one corner. Oh, never mind those groaning and creaking sounds or walls that are no longer plumb, minor details. A little spit and polish, it'd be good as new.
QUOTE
Originally posted by the YID
The overpressure developed by any air-fuel explosion will , by neccessity , find its way out through all possible routes. This would include window. Whether they be 3" thick or not, windows will still be an easier route than any solid exterior wall.
The overpressure developed by any air-fuel explosion will , by neccessity , find its way out through all possible routes. This would include window. Whether they be 3" thick or not, windows will still be an easier route than any solid exterior wall.
Thermobaric bombs...!!! Thermobaric bombs...!!! (he says waving his hands about.
IF the fireball was a 'thermobaric bomb' which could shatter 3" thick window glass 95 stories below the point of impact, please explain why the much larger 'thermobaric bomb' at the point of impact didn't explode out every single 1/4" window on the impact floors with this great thermobaric overpressure.
Man, someone posts a link to thermobaric bombs and suddenly these idiots have latched onto it like a new toy. Thermobaric overpressures 95 stories below in huge open spaces... same thing as 'magical passports' and 'never-ending korans' (to me), but carry on with your fantasies. It's quite comical watching you dance.
As far as the 50 ton press, I am well aware that it did not weigh 50 tons - it was simply a 50 ton hydraulic press. So what? Whether it weighed 2 tons or 5 tons a jet-fuel fireball (which is NOT a thermobaric weapon) is not going to 'move it about'. Pecararo said it was 'gone'. where did it go? Don't tell me, I know... the thermobaric bomb melted it, Right? Maybe that's where the molten metal in the basement came from.
Now lets see your magical dance about the disappearing / 'turned to rubble' concrete walls in the parking garage. Did the thermobaric bomb melt those too?
For number of elevators (and shafts) which went from the base to the tops of the towers... see my post regarding that...
So, let's assume that someone trapped by fire
in WTC 1 had a parachute, one for this type of
jump so to say. He jumps out the window and
then the chute opens.
Is he likely to make it?
in WTC 1 had a parachute, one for this type of
jump so to say. He jumps out the window and
then the chute opens.
Is he likely to make it?
YID quotes
"There was a huge gaping hole and it (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) was scattered throughout there."
He is agreeing here, its the (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) being addressed
He then misses out this part of the quote -
Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there."
What is "it" here if not STILL the fire - after all that IS what the question was about.
But no, by some curious twist the topic changes and the hole is now being addressed
"It was a huge hole. I would say it (THE HOLE) was probably about a third of it (THE BUILDING), right in the middle of it (THE BUILDING)."
The "it" in the Silverstein quote is another curious twist in YIDs thinking.
'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.(the attempt to contain the fire)' And they made that decision to pull(the attempt to contain the fire) and we watched the building collapse."
Lets discount the fact that pull is the industry term for demolition and just consider the language. Would "it" not simply be redundant here? Pull BACK Pull OUT from "the attempt to contain the fire" perhaps, but Pull it just does not wash.
Clintonesque desperation - "it" "is"
"There was a huge gaping hole and it (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) was scattered throughout there."
He is agreeing here, its the (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) being addressed
He then misses out this part of the quote -
Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there."
What is "it" here if not STILL the fire - after all that IS what the question was about.
But no, by some curious twist the topic changes and the hole is now being addressed
"It was a huge hole. I would say it (THE HOLE) was probably about a third of it (THE BUILDING), right in the middle of it (THE BUILDING)."
The "it" in the Silverstein quote is another curious twist in YIDs thinking.
'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.(the attempt to contain the fire)' And they made that decision to pull(the attempt to contain the fire) and we watched the building collapse."
Lets discount the fact that pull is the industry term for demolition and just consider the language. Would "it" not simply be redundant here? Pull BACK Pull OUT from "the attempt to contain the fire" perhaps, but Pull it just does not wash.
Clintonesque desperation - "it" "is"
A quick way to solve this mess might be to question
top executives renting in nearby buildings and/or
those in the positions in 1993.
With a little luck and persuation it might even
be learned that they demanded after 1993 that
WTC be wired so it could be brought down safely in
the case of another attack.
top executives renting in nearby buildings and/or
those in the positions in 1993.
With a little luck and persuation it might even
be learned that they demanded after 1993 that
WTC be wired so it could be brought down safely in
the case of another attack.
Some one posts
Um, that's still the same sentence.
Um, that's still the same sentence.
The "it" in the Silverstein quote is another curious twist in YIDs thinking.
'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.(the attempt to contain the fire)' And they made that decision to pull(the attempt to contain the fire) and we watched the building collapse."
Lets discount the fact that pull is the industry term for demolition and just consider the language. Would "it" not simply be redundant here? Pull BACK Pull OUT from "the attempt to contain the fire" perhaps, but Pull it just does not wash.
"Pull it" quite simply is NOT the industry standard phrase for such a thing. They "drop" buildings. The only time they use "pull" is in reference to a specific direction they want a building , or a portion of a building, to go.
Yes, you admitted a mistake. But what you wrote wasn't a mistake, it was a lie. Which part of this are you not understanding that doubtless everyone else seems to?
Admit you lied, son, and then we can move on.
And you can prove this because...
...you want it to be so SO BADLY?
...you don't like my conclusions, so I MUST be lying?
...you are telepathic?
...the reptilians told you?
Forget it. It wasn't a lie, it was a mistake, and you're a troll. Period.
Yes, you admitted a mistake. But what you wrote wasn't a mistake, it was a lie. Which part of this are you not understanding that doubtless everyone else seems to?
Admit you lied, son, and then we can move on.
And you can prove this because...
...you want it to be so SO BADLY?
...you don't like my conclusions, so I MUST be lying?
...you are telepathic?
...the reptilians told you?
Forget it. It wasn't a lie, it was a mistake, and you're a troll. Period.
Troll? No, not really. More like the lead attorney for the prosecution, attempting to establish the credibility of a witness (that's you, Schneibster).
Here's the court-room transcript:
Prosecution: Your Honor, before hearing testimony from this witness, re. the alleged 'pancake collapse' of the WTC towers, we first need to establish the witness's credibility. To this end, I would like to ask the defendant a few questions, if I may.
Judge: Please proceed, Mr. Mel.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Mister Schneibster: on Dec. 14, 2005 7:00pm, did you or did you not claim that Mr. Rodriquez 'has been shown to have engaged in perjury'?
Defendant: Yes sir, I did.
Prosecution: And on Dec. 14, 7:38pm, did a Mr. metamars question you on the veracity of this 'perjury' claim, and further, ask you to cite the source of your information?
Defendant: Yes, but...
Prosecution: A simple yes or no will suffice, Mr Schneibster. Now, approximately 2 short hours later, did you or did you not offer a retraction of the original claim, stating that you were misled by a disinformation web site?
Defendant: I guess that's plain for all to see, isn't it, you idiot.
Judge: If you don't mind, Mr. Schneibster, please keep the arrogant wise-cracks to yourself.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Now, Mr. Schneibster, were you or were you not asked by yours truly, some 3.5 hours later, to post a link to the web site that you had already deemed 'dis-informational', and 4 hours later you replied that you were unable to find the link to the site that only 7 hours previous you had determined lied to you?
Defendant: Huh? I don't think I understand the question...but, but, I really was unable to find the site...it wasn't even in my 'history list'. As mentioned, though, I do visit a lot of...you know..."kiddie" web sites, and I clear my history list often so my wife doesn't see where I've been...
Prosecution: That's nice, Mr. Schneibster...more info than we needed, really. So, to clarify one more time, are you claiming that in the course of a 7 hour period, you were able to find a web site, determine that its information was bogus, then be completely unable to produce a link to same said site?
Defendant: Ya, I guess I am. But I am "The Schneibster", you know, and I can contain such contradictions and blatant Tom-foolery. I am ordained -- by God himself -- to make any claim I deem necessary to defend the WTC 'pancake theory'.
Prosecution: (bitch-slapping defendant) No further questions, your Honor. It is abundantly clear that the initial claim of 'perjury' was slanderous, and the timely retraction and subsequent 'excuse' for the slander were themselves blatant lies. Given this, I feel it is in the best interest of this court room to disallow further testimony from this witness with regards to the events of 9/11/2005.
Defendant: Ya, but, but, but...you're a 'this', and you're a 'that'. And I don't like you very much anymore. You have no right to call me on my lies. MOMMY!
Judge: Settle down, Mr. Schneibster. Given the overwhelming evidence provided by Mr. Mel, I have no choice but to dismiss you from this court room. You may step down, Mr. Schneibster...and please don't let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.
Court adjourned.
QUOTE
YID quotes
"There was a huge gaping hole and it (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) was scattered throughout there."
He is agreeing here, its the (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) being addressed
He then misses out this part of the quote -
Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there."
What is "it" here if not STILL the fire - after all that IS what the question was about.
But no, by some curious twist the topic changes and the hole is now being addressed
"There was a huge gaping hole and it (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) was scattered throughout there."
He is agreeing here, its the (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) being addressed
He then misses out this part of the quote -
Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there."
What is "it" here if not STILL the fire - after all that IS what the question was about.
But no, by some curious twist the topic changes and the hole is now being addressed
Um, that's still the same sentence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| YID quotes "There was a huge gaping hole and it (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) was scattered throughout there." He is agreeing here, its the (THE FIRE IN THAT HOLE) being addressed He then misses out this part of the quote - Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there." What is "it" here if not STILL the fire - after all that IS what the question was about. But no, by some curious twist the topic changes and the hole is now being addressed |
Um, that's still the same sentence.
The "it" in the Silverstein quote is another curious twist in YIDs thinking.
'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.(the attempt to contain the fire)' And they made that decision to pull(the attempt to contain the fire) and we watched the building collapse."
Lets discount the fact that pull is the industry term for demolition and just consider the language. Would "it" not simply be redundant here? Pull BACK Pull OUT from "the attempt to contain the fire" perhaps, but Pull it just does not wash.
"Pull it" quite simply is NOT the industry standard phrase for such a thing. They "drop" buildings. The only time they use "pull" is in reference to a specific direction they want a building , or a portion of a building, to go.
QUOTE (galdur+Dec 16 2005, 09:28 PM)
So, let's assume that someone trapped by fire
in WTC 1 had a parachute, one for this type of
jump so to say. He jumps out the window and
then the chute opens.
Is he likely to make it?
Probably not.
1) the problem of falling debris would make this a bad idea.
2) the person would have to get a good run at it in order to get far away from the building. Unless the person is an experienced base jumper they will likely die in the attempt.
in WTC 1 had a parachute, one for this type of
jump so to say. He jumps out the window and
then the chute opens.
Is he likely to make it?
Probably not.
1) the problem of falling debris would make this a bad idea.
2) the person would have to get a good run at it in order to get far away from the building. Unless the person is an experienced base jumper they will likely die in the attempt.
Foxx,
I notice that you completely and thoroughly manage to ignore that Boyle and several others comment that the building looks bad, unsafe, not straight and that they had decieded at that point, very soon after WTC1 collapsed, that going into WTC 7 was a bad idea.
No, you would have everyone believe that the building was in great shape except for a few missing windows, a few raging fires on many floors and a 12 story chunk missing from one corner. Oh, never mind those groaning and creaking sounds or walls that are no longer plumb, minor details. A little spit and polish, it'd be good as new.
I notice that you completely and thoroughly manage to ignore that Boyle and several others comment that the building looks bad, unsafe, not straight and that they had decieded at that point, very soon after WTC1 collapsed, that going into WTC 7 was a bad idea.
No, you would have everyone believe that the building was in great shape except for a few missing windows, a few raging fires on many floors and a 12 story chunk missing from one corner. Oh, never mind those groaning and creaking sounds or walls that are no longer plumb, minor details. A little spit and polish, it'd be good as new.
YID, why do you ignore the statements from these people?
- From THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Edward Cachia FDNY WTC2 explosions before collapse: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
Link to quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...chia_Edward.txt
From The San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate.com:
Captain of Emergency Medical Services: "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building"
Link to quote:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10...rin_deshore.pdf
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
- Eye-witness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York
Link to quote:
http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...trical_supplys/
PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA:
Q. WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE? A. It was a frigging noise at first. At first I thought it was a professional demolition, where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear Pop Pop Pop Pop. That’s exactly what I thought it was when I heard that frigging noise. That’s when I saw the building coming down.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
Stephen Gregory , Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) flashes, explosions p 14
...I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy,
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
Member of the FDNY:
"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."
Video: http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov
Firefighter:
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS FlTZPATRlCK FDNY
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
FIREFIGHTER FRANK SWEENEY
I hear what sounded like firecrackers and a low rumble. I look up, and the south tower – I could see the top part of the siding overlapping the bottom side of the siding.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
MSNBC Reporter, Ann Thompson:
"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.....explosions.wmv
Street Reporter:
"45 minutes into the taping we were doing, there was an explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2.wmv
Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv
Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
Firemen recall "detonations" in South Tower:
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
Video: http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos...n_firehouse.mpg
Terror in the City, September 12 , 2001, Notes from Robert Ivy, FAIA Editor-in-chief
...we felt a rumble like faraway thunder and turned. The impossible was happening. The south tower of the World Trade Center shook, and in what resembled an elemental act, fell to earth in a mighty shout. The entire dissolution, the changeover from solid elements to ash, took only seconds, and it was gone...
Link to article:
http://www.archrecord.com/news/fromTheFiel.../0109terror.asp
An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks
from Neil deGrasse Tyson
The following is the text from an email Neil deGrasse Tyson sent to his family and friends on 12 September 2001. Neil witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks from the World Trade Center. He is Director of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History, which is located in New York City. Neil also serves as The Planetary Society's Vice President...
From: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sent: 10AM, Wednesday, 12 September 2001
Subject: The Horror, The Horror
...4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion...
...6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first...
Link to Neil deGrasse Tyson's email:
http://www.planetary.org/html/society/advi...t11account.html
Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, Eyewitnesses tell of horror, BBC News
"...I saw everything from my balcony in Soho. The first plane tried to veer off the tower but slammed straight into it, followed by the second plane," Nadine Keller of New York City wrote in an e-mail to BBC News Online.
"There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits," Ms Keller said.
Link to article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm
9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions
"There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
Source: "Teresa Veliz: A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly," in September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday, 2002), pp 9-15. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm
9/11 hero, William Rodriguez, who was the last person out of the north tower, explains that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower basement BEFORE the plane hit the tower:
"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above... Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.
"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center.
"I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can’t even say a word.
"I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.
"And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers."
Link to quotes:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/28031.htm
September 12, 2001, New York City, People.com
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.
We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building....
Link to article:
http://prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.htm
NBC Reporter, Pat Dawson:
[Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.“
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv
"Apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time two planes hit the building that there... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time..."
- War Corespondent, Jack Kelley
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....jack.kelley.rm
MSNBC Reporter, Rick Sanchez:
"Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion...I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center, besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had an explosive device in it."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....explosives.wmv
“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
- CBS News anchor, Dan Rather, September 11, 2001.
Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg
Excerpt from a radio interview with ground zero rescue worker, Indira Singh. She explains that she and others were told to move away from WTC 7 by members of the FDNY, because they were going to have to bring the building down on 9-11:
Radio host Bonnie Falkner: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?
Indira Singh: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.
Bonnie Falkner: Did they actually use the word "brought" down and who was it that was telling you this?
Indira Singh: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."
The entire interview can be listened to at the link below. The excerpts from above can be found approximately 10 minutes into the interview.
Guns & Butter Radio interview w/ Indira Singh hosted by Bonnie Falkner - April 27th 2005:
http://tinyurl.com/7dww8
Excerpt from an article written by award winning photographer, Thomas Franklin, who snapped the world famous photo of firemen raising the flag at ground zero. He explains that ground zero was evacuated approximately 30 minutes before WTC 7 was demolished on 9-11:
"Much of what happened to me on September 11 is a blur, but this moment I clearly remember: It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. I had only a few frames left, and an entire day's worth of pictures to develop, so I prepared to head back to New Jersey.
Before leaving, I took one last look at Ground Zero. Three firefighters were attaching an American flag to a slanted pole while standing on top of a pile of rubble about fifteen feet high. I was about thirty yards away, and I zoomed in and fired off a few frames with my digital camera. The flag-raising itself was spontaneous and unceremonious. It took only a few minutes, and I don't think the firemen had any idea they were being watched. One firefighter hoisted the flag up as the other two looked on. I shot a burst of frames as it went up, then ran to where they were. But before I could shoot any more they disappeared into the crowd leaving the area."
Link to article:
http://archives.cjr.org/year/02/2/franklin.asp
"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened"
- Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and co author of Why buildings Fall Down
Video: http://www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
"In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
[snip]
CONCLUSIONS
I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports funded by the US government and shown evidences for a likely alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives and chemical-cutters. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7. The “explosive demolition” hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not “junk science.” It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.
A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed – and others as outlined above – should proceed in the United States.
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.
[snip]
- Excerpt from BYU Professor of Physics, Steven E. Jones' academic paper submitted for peer-review entitled, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Link to Prof. Jones' entire paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow
September 20, 2001
english.people.com.cn
Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged.
According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers.
Link to article:
http://english.people.com.cn/english/20010...0920_80655.html
Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says
Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse
"It would be difficult for
something from the plane to trigger an event like that
"It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points
- Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and a major authority on the effects of explosions on buildings (Romero retracted his statements only days after making them, saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the buildings to fail.").
Original Link to quote
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm
Archived link of Romero's statements:
http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html
New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20284
Romero receives promotion soon after he recants his "bombs brought down the WTC" statements - January 11, 2002:
http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/11jan05.html
Romero appointed Co-Chair to the Presidential Advisory Commission:
http://www.yic.gov/paceea/adcom/bios.html
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
by David Heller
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
QUOTE (Mel+Dec 16 2005, 08:15 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 16 2005, 06:51 AM)
QUOTE
Again, you made no mistake .
Ummm, I admitted as much. Yes, you admitted a mistake. But what you wrote wasn't a mistake, it was a lie. Which part of this are you not understanding that doubtless everyone else seems to?
Admit you lied, son, and then we can move on.
And you can prove this because...
...you want it to be so SO BADLY?
...you don't like my conclusions, so I MUST be lying?
...you are telepathic?
...the reptilians told you?
Forget it. It wasn't a lie, it was a mistake, and you're a troll. Period.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 17 2005, 12:50 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Dec 16 2005, 08:15 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 16 2005, 06:51 AM)
QUOTE
Again, you made no mistake .
Ummm, I admitted as much. Yes, you admitted a mistake. But what you wrote wasn't a mistake, it was a lie. Which part of this are you not understanding that doubtless everyone else seems to?
Admit you lied, son, and then we can move on.
And you can prove this because...
...you want it to be so SO BADLY?
...you don't like my conclusions, so I MUST be lying?
...you are telepathic?
...the reptilians told you?
Forget it. It wasn't a lie, it was a mistake, and you're a troll. Period.
Troll? No, not really. More like the lead attorney for the prosecution, attempting to establish the credibility of a witness (that's you, Schneibster).
Here's the court-room transcript:
Prosecution: Your Honor, before hearing testimony from this witness, re. the alleged 'pancake collapse' of the WTC towers, we first need to establish the witness's credibility. To this end, I would like to ask the defendant a few questions, if I may.
Judge: Please proceed, Mr. Mel.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Mister Schneibster: on Dec. 14, 2005 7:00pm, did you or did you not claim that Mr. Rodriquez 'has been shown to have engaged in perjury'?
Defendant: Yes sir, I did.
Prosecution: And on Dec. 14, 7:38pm, did a Mr. metamars question you on the veracity of this 'perjury' claim, and further, ask you to cite the source of your information?
Defendant: Yes, but...
Prosecution: A simple yes or no will suffice, Mr Schneibster. Now, approximately 2 short hours later, did you or did you not offer a retraction of the original claim, stating that you were misled by a disinformation web site?
Defendant: I guess that's plain for all to see, isn't it, you idiot.
Judge: If you don't mind, Mr. Schneibster, please keep the arrogant wise-cracks to yourself.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Now, Mr. Schneibster, were you or were you not asked by yours truly, some 3.5 hours later, to post a link to the web site that you had already deemed 'dis-informational', and 4 hours later you replied that you were unable to find the link to the site that only 7 hours previous you had determined lied to you?
Defendant: Huh? I don't think I understand the question...but, but, I really was unable to find the site...it wasn't even in my 'history list'. As mentioned, though, I do visit a lot of...you know..."kiddie" web sites, and I clear my history list often so my wife doesn't see where I've been...
Prosecution: That's nice, Mr. Schneibster...more info than we needed, really. So, to clarify one more time, are you claiming that in the course of a 7 hour period, you were able to find a web site, determine that its information was bogus, then be completely unable to produce a link to same said site?
Defendant: Ya, I guess I am. But I am "The Schneibster", you know, and I can contain such contradictions and blatant Tom-foolery. I am ordained -- by God himself -- to make any claim I deem necessary to defend the WTC 'pancake theory'.
Prosecution: (bitch-slapping defendant) No further questions, your Honor. It is abundantly clear that the initial claim of 'perjury' was slanderous, and the timely retraction and subsequent 'excuse' for the slander were themselves blatant lies. Given this, I feel it is in the best interest of this court room to disallow further testimony from this witness with regards to the events of 9/11/2005.
Defendant: Ya, but, but, but...you're a 'this', and you're a 'that'. And I don't like you very much anymore. You have no right to call me on my lies. MOMMY!
Judge: Settle down, Mr. Schneibster. Given the overwhelming evidence provided by Mr. Mel, I have no choice but to dismiss you from this court room. You may step down, Mr. Schneibster...and please don't let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.
Court adjourned.
stallion,
I have not ignored those descriptions. They describe nothing that could not be expected to be observed when the building collapsed.
One of your quotes goes on to state that he thought it could have been electrical explosions that produced the flashes(why did you ignore that?)
"Commissioner Stephen Gregory of the Bureau of Communications"
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing(sic) down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions
Indeed when the upper section came down it would have caused an incredible shaking in the rest of the building not unlike an earthquake. This would have produced an lot of noise and electrical flashes as wires severed and fixtures came down.
That terrific boom as the collapse started,,,, just what sound do you suppose the upper section hitting the next floors would make? What? a hissing noise? a musical note? what?
So, stallion, I have asked a few questions that have received absolutely no response. Care to give them a try?
1)Given that Rodriguez was in the basement at the time of the impacts and given that basements do not have windows from which Mr.Rodriguez could see the aircraft hit the tower, how is it that he has determined that the second loud noise he heard/felt was the aircraft impact. Note that they occurred one right after the other.
2) Boyle states more than once that the firefighters were very wary of entering WTC7. He states that there were creaking noises being heard, that it did not look good and even was out of plumb. Why then is it a contention of some that WTC 7 was in no danger of collapse when right from the beginning , after WTC 1 collapsed, that the firefighters already had grave concerns about entering the building?
edited to add
3) It has been pointed out that the Secret Service and other gov't agencies had large offices in the WTc buildings. How does this relate to the idea that gov't caused the attacks?
I have not ignored those descriptions. They describe nothing that could not be expected to be observed when the building collapsed.
One of your quotes goes on to state that he thought it could have been electrical explosions that produced the flashes(why did you ignore that?)
QUOTE
"Commissioner Stephen Gregory of the Bureau of Communications"
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing(sic) down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions
Indeed when the upper section came down it would have caused an incredible shaking in the rest of the building not unlike an earthquake. This would have produced an lot of noise and electrical flashes as wires severed and fixtures came down.
That terrific boom as the collapse started,,,, just what sound do you suppose the upper section hitting the next floors would make? What? a hissing noise? a musical note? what?
So, stallion, I have asked a few questions that have received absolutely no response. Care to give them a try?
1)Given that Rodriguez was in the basement at the time of the impacts and given that basements do not have windows from which Mr.Rodriguez could see the aircraft hit the tower, how is it that he has determined that the second loud noise he heard/felt was the aircraft impact. Note that they occurred one right after the other.
2) Boyle states more than once that the firefighters were very wary of entering WTC7. He states that there were creaking noises being heard, that it did not look good and even was out of plumb. Why then is it a contention of some that WTC 7 was in no danger of collapse when right from the beginning , after WTC 1 collapsed, that the firefighters already had grave concerns about entering the building?
edited to add
3) It has been pointed out that the Secret Service and other gov't agencies had large offices in the WTc buildings. How does this relate to the idea that gov't caused the attacks?
Hahaha, thanks for proving me right, Mel. Nobody posts fake trial transcripts on a physics site. Bye now.
QUOTE (yesitdid+)
Why then is it a contention of some that WTC 7 was in no danger of collapse when right from the beginning , after WTC 1 collapsed, that the firefighters already had grave concerns about entering the building?
Because the site they're getting their information from... or whatever... says that WTC 7 was undamaged. See for yourself. "The collapse of the 1st and 2nd towers destroyed the WTC 5 and 6 buildings, but didn't harm WTC 7."
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 17 2005, 05:14 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+)
Why then is it a contention of some that WTC 7 was in no danger of collapse when right from the beginning , after WTC 1 collapsed, that the firefighters already had grave concerns about entering the building?
Because the site they're getting their information from... or whatever... says that WTC 7 was undamaged. See for yourself. "The collapse of the 1st and 2nd towers destroyed the WTC 5 and 6 buildings, but didn't harm WTC 7."
Which is patently wrong. Think any of them will admit it or will they all hold to their dogma?
Which is patently wrong. Think any of them will admit it or will they all hold to their dogma?
I think we might need a cougarma or a coupla wolfmas.
my karma ran over your dogma.
let's see. we've got a witness who heard one EXPLOSION from down below(having heard the exact same thing in the exact same location makes him a minor expert on the sound of explosions from below), and then an explosion from above.
he knew it was the planes afterwards, dimwit. to him, it was just an explosion from above, at the time, but when he was talkng to reporters, even people in siberia knew that the explosion from above was a plane.
and we have a tower which didn't budge when the plane hit, but then started swaying like a whacky garden hose from the aftershock.
are we talking about the same buildings for these two events?
was rodriguez in the tower that also hosted the 'whiplash' theory? or was he in the other tower? hmmm.
because, if he was in the same tower, if there were explosives timed(triggered with motion swnsors or something, okay?) to blow at the saame time as the plane impacts, then it would indicate one went a little too soon, and one went a little too late.
maybe they hoped that alone could do it(basement explosions and planes), but wired in more explosives as a contingency plan(which they ended up needing, because the towers were so well designed! i think they should just put up the same design. that would show those terrorist bastards what for).
let's see. we've got a witness who heard one EXPLOSION from down below(having heard the exact same thing in the exact same location makes him a minor expert on the sound of explosions from below), and then an explosion from above.
he knew it was the planes afterwards, dimwit. to him, it was just an explosion from above, at the time, but when he was talkng to reporters, even people in siberia knew that the explosion from above was a plane.
and we have a tower which didn't budge when the plane hit, but then started swaying like a whacky garden hose from the aftershock.
are we talking about the same buildings for these two events?
was rodriguez in the tower that also hosted the 'whiplash' theory? or was he in the other tower? hmmm.
because, if he was in the same tower, if there were explosives timed(triggered with motion swnsors or something, okay?) to blow at the saame time as the plane impacts, then it would indicate one went a little too soon, and one went a little too late.
maybe they hoped that alone could do it(basement explosions and planes), but wired in more explosives as a contingency plan(which they ended up needing, because the towers were so well designed! i think they should just put up the same design. that would show those terrorist bastards what for).
OK, my turn.
Heller's article is worth reading, but his claim about conservation of momentum dictating a collapse time slowed down to 15.5 seconds is bunk. If Hoffman claimed this at one time, he certainly doesn't seem to claim it now, and I can find no trace of this claim on his web site.
If you look a few pages back, I posted the results and source code which showed only a small effect from conservation of momentum in this type of analysis.
I find it interesting, and disconcerting, that Heller's article is linked to from reopen911.org without any disclaimer of this aspect. Reopen911.org is also still claiming that the steel structure of the WTC towers were broken in something like 8.4 seconds, which is baloney. I have written them 2 emails on this subject, and all they did (apparently) was modify their contest description slightly.
I feel bad for Jimmy Walter, who I believe is a sincere patriot whose previously multi-million dollar assets are mostly gone, due to his patriotic attempt to bring the truth about 911 into the main stream and get accountability. It appears he has drunk the Eric Hufschmid Kool-Aid.
I have no problem with anybody making an honest mistake. Why Hufshmid persists in his bogus claim, well after it was shown to be wrong, is a mystery to me. For a credible analysis of the true collapse times, see Hoffman.
QUOTE
let's see. we've got a witness who heard one EXPLOSION from down below(having heard the exact same thing in the exact same location makes him a minor expert on the sound of explosions from below), and then an explosion from above.
he knew it was the planes afterwards, dimwit. to him, it was just an explosion from above, at the time, but when he was talkng to reporters, even people in siberia knew that the explosion from above was a plane.
Simple question: if someone two floors below the impact didn't feel it until the shockwave from it bounced off the bottom of the building and came back up, how did Rodriguez know it had happened until that same shockwave got to him? he knew it was the planes afterwards, dimwit. to him, it was just an explosion from above, at the time, but when he was talkng to reporters, even people in siberia knew that the explosion from above was a plane.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| let's see. we've got a witness who heard one EXPLOSION from down below(having heard the exact same thing in the exact same location makes him a minor expert on the sound of explosions from below), and then an explosion from above. he knew it was the planes afterwards, dimwit. to him, it was just an explosion from above, at the time, but when he was talkng to reporters, even people in siberia knew that the explosion from above was a plane. |
Simple question: if someone two floors below the impact didn't feel it until the shockwave from it bounced off the bottom of the building and came back up, how did Rodriguez know it had happened until that same shockwave got to him?
and we have a tower which didn't budge when the plane hit, but then started swaying like a whacky garden hose from the aftershock.
and we have a tower which didn't budge when the plane hit, but then started swaying like a whacky garden hose from the aftershock.
Guess you missed the part where they discussed all the dampers the floors were connected to the core and perimeter columns with.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
As far as the 50 ton press, I am well aware that it did not weigh 50 tons - it was simply a 50 ton hydraulic press. So what? Whether it weighed 2 tons or 5 tons a jet-fuel fireball (which is NOT a thermobaric weapon) is not going to 'move it about'. Pecararo said it was 'gone'. where did it go? Don't tell me, I know... the thermobaric bomb melted it, Right? Maybe that's where the molten metal in the basement came from.
2 Tons or 5 tons?????
I'd say 300 lbs, 400 tops for a deluxe model with multi-speed ram.
Technical Stats
• OAL: 74H x 50W x 31-1/2D
• Range: 0 - 28-3/4 in
• Size: 50 Ton
Arthur
2 Tons or 5 tons?????
I'd say 300 lbs, 400 tops for a deluxe model with multi-speed ram.
Technical Stats
• OAL: 74H x 50W x 31-1/2D
• Range: 0 - 28-3/4 in
• Size: 50 Ton
Arthur
analogy is often lost on Foxx.
He should know that we are not stating that an actual thermobaric bomb was set off in the towers and he should know that we are simply comparing the effects of a jet fuel explosion (fuel that has plummeted 800 feet). However, having made the comparison he will now expect the jet fuel explosion to exactly match the effects of a thermobaric weapon.
There certainly are similarities. The fuel would largely atomize or vaporize while falling through the shaft. The flame front and shock wave from the ignition of the fuel at the point of impact would follow and push the fuel in the shaft until it got to an outlet such as the basement level. There it would have spread through the open area as a hot , high speed, possibly supersonic, wind. A workbench or a hydraulic press cannot be expected to withstand it.
Now I might ask for a reference on the 3' thick windows on the lobby level. Perhaps tech stats on such windows would be nice too.
He should know that we are not stating that an actual thermobaric bomb was set off in the towers and he should know that we are simply comparing the effects of a jet fuel explosion (fuel that has plummeted 800 feet). However, having made the comparison he will now expect the jet fuel explosion to exactly match the effects of a thermobaric weapon.
There certainly are similarities. The fuel would largely atomize or vaporize while falling through the shaft. The flame front and shock wave from the ignition of the fuel at the point of impact would follow and push the fuel in the shaft until it got to an outlet such as the basement level. There it would have spread through the open area as a hot , high speed, possibly supersonic, wind. A workbench or a hydraulic press cannot be expected to withstand it.
Now I might ask for a reference on the 3' thick windows on the lobby level. Perhaps tech stats on such windows would be nice too.
QUOTE
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
by David Heller
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
by David Heller
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
Heller's article is worth reading, but his claim about conservation of momentum dictating a collapse time slowed down to 15.5 seconds is bunk. If Hoffman claimed this at one time, he certainly doesn't seem to claim it now, and I can find no trace of this claim on his web site.
If you look a few pages back, I posted the results and source code which showed only a small effect from conservation of momentum in this type of analysis.
I find it interesting, and disconcerting, that Heller's article is linked to from reopen911.org without any disclaimer of this aspect. Reopen911.org is also still claiming that the steel structure of the WTC towers were broken in something like 8.4 seconds, which is baloney. I have written them 2 emails on this subject, and all they did (apparently) was modify their contest description slightly.
I feel bad for Jimmy Walter, who I believe is a sincere patriot whose previously multi-million dollar assets are mostly gone, due to his patriotic attempt to bring the truth about 911 into the main stream and get accountability. It appears he has drunk the Eric Hufschmid Kool-Aid.
I have no problem with anybody making an honest mistake. Why Hufshmid persists in his bogus claim, well after it was shown to be wrong, is a mystery to me. For a credible analysis of the true collapse times, see Hoffman.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 17 2005, 11:09 AM)
OK, my turn.
QUOTE
let's see. we've got a witness who heard one EXPLOSION from down below(having heard the exact same thing in the exact same location makes him a minor expert on the sound of explosions from below), and then an explosion from above.
he knew it was the planes afterwards, dimwit. to him, it was just an explosion from above, at the time, but when he was talkng to reporters, even people in siberia knew that the explosion from above was a plane.
Simple question: if someone two floors below the impact didn't feel it until the shockwave from it bounced off the bottom of the building and came back up, how did Rodriguez know it had happened until that same shockwave got to him? he knew it was the planes afterwards, dimwit. to him, it was just an explosion from above, at the time, but when he was talkng to reporters, even people in siberia knew that the explosion from above was a plane.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| let's see. we've got a witness who heard one EXPLOSION from down below(having heard the exact same thing in the exact same location makes him a minor expert on the sound of explosions from below), and then an explosion from above. he knew it was the planes afterwards, dimwit. to him, it was just an explosion from above, at the time, but when he was talkng to reporters, even people in siberia knew that the explosion from above was a plane. |
Simple question: if someone two floors below the impact didn't feel it until the shockwave from it bounced off the bottom of the building and came back up, how did Rodriguez know it had happened until that same shockwave got to him?
and we have a tower which didn't budge when the plane hit, but then started swaying like a whacky garden hose from the aftershock.
Heller is NOT an architect.
The S.F.Inst. of Architecture is not an accredited school. He cannot sign any docuement as an architect.
Metamars, points out that his calculations are bad, that he is associated with another clearly erroneous (to put the best possible light on them) person Eric Hufschmid and a site that claims the towers fell faster than free fall.
Heller is discredited, move on.
and we have a tower which didn't budge when the plane hit, but then started swaying like a whacky garden hose from the aftershock.
Guess you missed the part where they discussed all the dampers the floors were connected to the core and perimeter columns with.
i see we skipped the part about whether it was the same tower.
ever carry a 4X8 sheet of plywood on a windy day? just that small surface area is enough to push you around like a leaf.
if'n the towers could withstand hurricane force winds, then these planes hitting them were like a balmy breeze to the towers.
the planes ripped their way into the towers without visually slowing down, like the proverbial hot knife through butter. it looked like the tower opened up and swallowed them. and as we can see the forward momentum of the planes was used mostly to shred steel, and not budge the tower.
i really don't think dampers can convert (horizontal) kinetic energy instantly into (vertical) , ummmmm, what kind of energy? invisible dark matter energy, maybe?
how can something 'bounce back' if it hasn't moved? i don't care if it was made of pure rubber(which is what the dampeners were made of)
hmmmm. maybe there was a bomb in the basement that caused the tower to shake. just a thought.
and, incidentally, a sound is not a shockwave. they don't travel at the same speed, now, do they?
and speaking of shockwaves, what caused a fireman's hat to blow off from the shockwave coming from BELOW as the towers began collapsing? overpressure down the freight elevator shaft, no doubt. probably some errant jet fuel, too, maybe 50000 gallons for the basement, 50000 for the mechanical floors, etc. that stuff is MAGIC!
i see we skipped the part about whether it was the same tower.
ever carry a 4X8 sheet of plywood on a windy day? just that small surface area is enough to push you around like a leaf.
if'n the towers could withstand hurricane force winds, then these planes hitting them were like a balmy breeze to the towers.
the planes ripped their way into the towers without visually slowing down, like the proverbial hot knife through butter. it looked like the tower opened up and swallowed them. and as we can see the forward momentum of the planes was used mostly to shred steel, and not budge the tower.
i really don't think dampers can convert (horizontal) kinetic energy instantly into (vertical) , ummmmm, what kind of energy? invisible dark matter energy, maybe?
how can something 'bounce back' if it hasn't moved? i don't care if it was made of pure rubber(which is what the dampeners were made of)
hmmmm. maybe there was a bomb in the basement that caused the tower to shake. just a thought.
and, incidentally, a sound is not a shockwave. they don't travel at the same speed, now, do they?
and speaking of shockwaves, what caused a fireman's hat to blow off from the shockwave coming from BELOW as the towers began collapsing? overpressure down the freight elevator shaft, no doubt. probably some errant jet fuel, too, maybe 50000 gallons for the basement, 50000 for the mechanical floors, etc. that stuff is MAGIC!
IIRC the NIST documents state that the towers moved approx TWICE as much as they were designed to move in a hurricane force wind of 100 mph. ~ 1 meter at the top, also IIRC they said this excess movement probably did not produce significant structural damage.
The NIST report also said that the impact was so SEVERE that people and furniture, even on lower floors were knocked about.
Arthur
The NIST report also said that the impact was so SEVERE that people and furniture, even on lower floors were knocked about.
Arthur
QUOTE
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
by David Heller
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder
by David Heller
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder
Heller is NOT an architect.
The S.F.Inst. of Architecture is not an accredited school. He cannot sign any docuement as an architect.
Metamars, points out that his calculations are bad, that he is associated with another clearly erroneous (to put the best possible light on them) person Eric Hufschmid and a site that claims the towers fell faster than free fall.
Heller is discredited, move on.
QUOTE (knownaught+Dec 17 2005, 04:01 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 17 2005, 11:09 AM)
OK, my turn.
QUOTE
let's see. we've got a witness who heard one EXPLOSION from down below(having heard the exact same thing in the exact same location makes him a minor expert on the sound of explosions from below), and then an explosion from above.
he knew it was the planes afterwards, dimwit. to him, it was just an explosion from above, at the time, but when he was talking to reporters, even people in Siberia knew that the explosion from above was a plane.
Simple question: if someone two floors below the impact didn't feel it until the shock wave from it bounced off the bottom of the building and came back up, how did Rodriguez know it had happened until that same shock wave got to him? he knew it was the planes afterwards, dimwit. to him, it was just an explosion from above, at the time, but when he was talking to reporters, even people in Siberia knew that the explosion from above was a plane.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| let's see. we've got a witness who heard one EXPLOSION from down below(having heard the exact same thing in the exact same location makes him a minor expert on the sound of explosions from below), and then an explosion from above. he knew it was the planes afterwards, dimwit. to him, it was just an explosion from above, at the time, but when he was talking to reporters, even people in Siberia knew that the explosion from above was a plane. |
Simple question: if someone two floors below the impact didn't feel it until the shock wave from it bounced off the bottom of the building and came back up, how did Rodriguez know it had happened until that same shock wave got to him?
and we have a tower which didn't budge when the plane hit, but then started swaying like a wacky garden hose from the aftershock.
and we have a tower which didn't budge when the plane hit, but then started swaying like a wacky garden hose from the aftershock.
Guess you missed the part where they discussed all the dampers the floors were connected to the core and perimeter columns with.
i see we skipped the part about whether it was the same tower.
ever carry a 4X8 sheet of plywood on a windy day? just that small surface area is enough to push you around like a leaf.
if'n the towers could withstand hurricane force winds, then these planes hitting them were like a balmy breeze to the towers.
the planes ripped their way into the towers without visually slowing down, like the proverbial hot knife through butter. it looked like the tower opened up and swallowed them. and as we can see the forward momentum of the planes was used mostly to shred steel, and not budge the tower.
i really don't think dampers can convert (horizontal) kinetic energy instantly into (vertical) , ummmmm, what kind of energy? invisible dark matter energy, maybe?
how can something 'bounce back' if it hasn't moved? i don't care if it was made of pure rubber(which is what the dampeners were made of)
hmmmm. maybe there was a bomb in the basement that caused the tower to shake. just a thought.
and, incidentally, a sound is not a shock wave. they don't travel at the same speed, now, do they?
and speaking of shock waves, what caused a fireman's hat to blow off from the shock wave coming from BELOW as the towers began collapsing? overpressure down the freight elevator shaft, no doubt. probably some errant jet fuel, too, maybe 50000 gallons for the basement, 50000 for the mechanical floors, etc. that stuff is MAGIC!
Tell you what pal. You tell me what angle difference there would be in a building that is viewed from 1000 feet away when it moves a maximum of 1 meter.
In all of the photos and videos of the towers being hit it would simply be impossible for anyone to detect the movement of the top from street level.
Witness testimony of the impacts show that the building did in fact move a lot, gyprock cracked, lights fell people were startled by the sudden movement and noise.
The momentum of the planes was obviously transferred to the towers. You say the planes were not visibly slowed down. Yet you also state that the planes were shredded and I assume you know that what came out the other side was much less than a whole aircraft so it obviously slowed down.
Perhaps you mean that it did not appear to slow down in the 0.1 seconds it took to fully enter the building. Is there some reason you can supply that would suggest it would be visible?
The NIST report shows that the debris was moving, on average 100 mph slower after moving through the wall.
A hurricane will distribute its wind load over the entire wall of the building. The plane impacts concentrated their force at one, high, floor. Care to wonder how that would affect the building's response or will you continue to prove your own failures in analysis.
As for Rodriguez, he did not actually witness any explosion from the basement. He states he heard it from the basement and later found people who said it had come from the elevator shaft. Fact is he is hearing the sound of the impact that has been transmitted via the building's structure to the basement. This would be the first time he heard anything since sound travels faster in a solid than through the air.
Fact is Rodriguez has absolutely no way to determine that the second sound he heard was the aircraft impact, NONE!
Another point about W.R., he stated that he usually gets to work about 8:30 but was half an hour late that day. uhh, the buildings were hit at about 8:45, 15 minutes before he says he got to work. It appears he gets things a little mixed up in the time line thing.
This is too extreme a view, and as I doubt anybody here who is a frequent poster is an architect (with or without a degree in architecture from an accredited school), then none of us should post anything, if this is the rule....
My cousin is an architect, but some of my questions to her were answered by "I don't know, you have to ask an engineer." Does this mean that licensed architects are "discredited", also?
Finally, you don't know whether or not Hoffman ever made such a claim, or not. If not, Heller is lying, but if so, his sin was citing Hoffman as a reference without verifying his claim.
As there are many people who cite Bazant Zhou and never bothered to verify it's usefulness (which I suspect is nil, even in principle*, for it's stated purpose) I wouldn't go overboard in this case, either.
* I have asked here and at apollohoax.net whether or not "dynamic elastic resistance" even models 1st order effects in a WTC scenario, but nobody has given me an answer.
This is too extreme a view, and as I doubt anybody here who is a frequent poster is an architect (with or without a degree in architecture from an accredited school), then none of us should post anything, if this is the rule....
My cousin is an architect, but some of my questions to her were answered by "I don't know, you have to ask an engineer." Does this mean that licensed architects are "discredited", also?
Finally, you don't know whether or not Hoffman ever made such a claim, or not. If not, Heller is lying, but if so, his sin was citing Hoffman as a reference without verifying his claim.
As there are many people who cite Bazant Zhou and never bothered to verify it's usefulness (which I suspect is nil, even in principle*, for it's stated purpose) I wouldn't go overboard in this case, either.
* I have asked here and at apollohoax.net whether or not "dynamic elastic resistance" even models 1st order effects in a WTC scenario, but nobody has given me an answer.
Heller is discredited not because he is not an architect, he ius discredited for pasing himself off as one, for alligning himself with Hufschmid and for erroneous calculations.
If you wish to give him as much weight as any poster here, fine, but as an expert he is discredited.
Bazant's credentials are however intact , his books on aspects of engineering are accepted by the community. You say that the dynamic elastic analysis is useless but you do not have the qualifications to make that claim nor do you quote anyone who does have them as saying so.
I travel a lot. I post from multiple time zones, so it might appear I'm up early/late, when it really isn't that early/late for me. Don't know about others, I don't pay attention to times (particularly since the time my posts are dated bear no relationship to any time zone I'm in)
Arthur
How did you came to the conclusion that Heller is passing himself off as an architect? The Garlic and Grass article says, on the bottom,
How did you came to the conclusion that Heller is passing himself off as an architect? The Garlic and Grass article says, on the bottom,
Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.
Thus, he is claiming to be a builder, not an architect (or a physicist, for that matter.). So, no doubt, you are referring to some other wep page where Heller makes the claim of being an architect. What is the URL of that page?
If you wish to give him as much weight as any poster here, fine, but as an expert he is discredited.
Unfair, unless he really does claim to be an architect or a physicist. If you merely said that, despite a relevant background, he is not an expert, I would have no quarrel with you. Perhaps you want to blame him for claims that other people made for him? That is also grossly unfair, not to mention dishonest.
Please clarify.
Unfair, unless he really does claim to be an architect or a physicist. If you merely said that, despite a relevant background, he is not an expert, I would have no quarrel with you. Perhaps you want to blame him for claims that other people made for him? That is also grossly unfair, not to mention dishonest.
Please clarify.
Bazant's credentials are however intact , his books on aspects of engineering are accepted by the community. You say that the dynamic elastic analysis is useless but you do not have the qualifications to make that claim nor do you quote anyone who does have them as saying so.
I have derived a contradiction based on BZ, and furthermore I see no real justification for his analysis in WTC, to determine the sorts of things that they are claiming. That doesn't mean that elastic dynamic analysis is not useful, at all, in engineering. JayUtah at apollohoax.net has indicated, unambiguously, that it is of use in studying structural failure in metal, in some circumstances such as in the fluttering of an airplane wing.
However, when I put the question, on that forum, about the proper use of this analysis, and ask specifically whether or not it is useful in the sense of first order effects, etc., I did not get an answer, from JayUtah or anybody else.
For the non-techies that visit this board, the consideration of proper domain for various equations and theories is no trivial matter. E.g., there's not a single particle physicist in the world who doesn't "believe" in special relativity and, furthermore, doesn't use it (at least implicitly) day in and day out in their work. However, there's also not a single particle physicist in the world who believes that special relativity will hold up when dealing with spacetime scales of Planck length. (Otherwise, the string theorists are wasting their time )
That fact that Steven Weinberg has a Nobel Prize in Physics and has published reputably doesn't mean that, if he's foolish enough to claim that special relativity works just fine a Planck-length scales, anybody will take him seriously.
Perhaps you have sincerely conflated these two ideas:
1) elastic dynamic analysis is useless ("in general" is implicit)
2) elastic dynamic analysis is useless for explaining the WTC collapse
I have now clearly (I hope) explained to you the difference. Just to dot my i's and cross my t's:
1) implies that there is no domain, at all, where elastic dynamic analysis is useful
I have never said that. As I have clearly stated that I don't understand it, 100%, it would be an unlikely claim to make, don't you think?
2) implies that elastic dynamic analysis is being misapplied, in a way that makes it's conclusion quite useless in the BZ WTC paper.
I have indeed stated my belief that I believe BZ is useless for reaching the conclusions they did re WTC. I don't recall whether or not I was careful, in each and every instance, of making the "for reaching the conclusions they did re WTC" explicit, when it wasn't clear from the context, but this is certainly my meaning, as it must be, since I have also clearly stated that I don't understand it 100%.
Since you have such great confidence in BZ, please answer this very basic questions, and provide a references:
Does elastic dynamic analyis [b]even reasonably tell us about first order effect in a WTC scenario, and where is the proof of that, in terms of computer simulations on simpler, but analogous systems? * [/B]
In other words, for what domain (= initial conditions + boudary conditions + etc.) is this useful, in what ways is it useful, and how do these considerations of proper domain relate to the specifics of the WTC towers?
FWIW, I suspect that BZ is useful for small perturbations in stiff metals such as in the WTC, before significant compression and flexing perturbations that would at all resemble what could reasonably have occured, and before fracutring. I believe it is also useful for less stiff metals, undergoing periodic motions, such as a fluttering airplane wing.
* proof on physical systems would also be of interest, though that seem unlikely in today's world of cheap and powerful computing.
Which part would a court deem admissable?
Both, people are allowed to have both an immediate reaction and sober second thought after more information has been learned.
By your own measure then zoctoberfest, Foxx should not be believed as he now states he believes?
well we don't know if foxx had his whole family threatened by the secret service, however, it logically follows that anyone speaking against the one-eyed pyramid can practically have their whole family erased from history.
there is also a big difference between reinterpreting an event based on propoganda and personal memory, and reinterpreting an event based on empirical research.
so, anyway, eyewitness testimony is most valuable closest to the event. the mind has a tendency to rationalise information into know lexicons, ie. belief systems, over time.
now, being a fireman, i assume his perception is quite accute when he is actually involved in a life and death battle with his lifetime nemesis, ie. fire and it's effects.
this fireman wasn't even necessarrily threatened. he could just have been hypnotised like the rest of society. his new belief system would mould his perception of what he saw.
he used the most efficient language at the time to describe what he was seeing. he's stuttering, fer chrissakes. his is not filtering what he says, but rather, looking for the most appropriate words to describe(unwrite? haha) what he has seen.
what WOULD a court deem admissable? lol. apparently nothing. i don't see any 911 court cases going anywhere except the dismissal bin.
As an attempt to respond to the above a government apologist posts the following...
As an attempt to respond to the above a government apologist posts the following...
2 Tons or 5 tons?????
I'd say 300 lbs, 400 tops for a deluxe model with multi-speed ram.
Technical Stats
• OAL: 74H x 50W x 31-1/2D
• Range: 0 - 28-3/4 in
• Size: 50 Ton
I can't count the times I've seen this same picture posted by official story supporters as an attempt to 'discredit' the implications of Pecararo's statement.... >shakes head<
In my view, posting of pictures like above are obvious obfuscations in an attempt to muddy the waters, and avoid true un-biased discussion of Pecararo's testimony...
Let's face some honest FACTS here.
Based upon Pecararo's statement, none of us can provide 'evidence' of what model of '50 ton press', Pecararo referred to, that was actually used in the WTC machine shop... can we?
Does anyone have a receipt... or information on what model 50 ton press was installed in the machine shop at WTC?
I work around an industrial environment; during the course of business, visit various machine shops, and am familiar with commercial tools.
It is quite obvious to me that those who post pictures of a '50 ton press' (like above), have absolutely no experience of getting their 'hands dirty' in a real industrial shop, and probably have never even visited one.
The above '50 ton press' is a 'home workshop' model (probably imported from Taiwan).
Sure, It will perform a 50 ton press duty for 'home-shop' applications.
Now let's have a look at some REAL commercial industrial use hydraulic presses such as one might find in a proper 'machine shop'.
Here's a '6-ton' commercial hydraulic press...
Here's a ' 35 ton' commercial hydraulic press...
Here's a ' 45 ton' commercial hydraulic press...
And here's a ' 50 ton' commercial hydraulic press...
While I think none of us can provide actual 'proof' (that I have seen so far) of the exact model of 50 ton press that was employed in the WTC machine shop... I'm a little sceptical that they went out and bought a hydraulic press for their machine shops from 'Canadian Tire' or 'Home Depot' to service the WTC needs.
Anyone else believe that?
The above 'home-workshop' model posted by adoucette clearly shows either...
* his propensity to obfuscating bias... or
* his ignorance of real industrial machinery.
It should also be noted that while posting pictures of home-workshop ' 50 ton presses', the official conspiracy theorists always seem to avoid the main point...
EVEN IF (although highly unlikely) that a home-workshop model was used in the WTC machine shop...
What happened to it? Where did it go? Pecararo said it was 'GONE'. Did the muslims steal it?
They never want to get into too deep of a rational discussion of what may have realistically happened to it.
Just post a nonsense photo (in an attempt to discredit Pecararo's statement)... and move on to the next obfuscation.
Any reasonable person will recognize the games these people play to prop-up the long-since discredited 'official fairy tale'.
I am NOT saying that the pictures above of commercial 50 ton presses are 'proof' that the press in the WTC machine shop WAS one of these commericial types, but it certainly is much more likely that it was more similar to these models, than the home-shop ' 50-ton press' like the one at the top of this post.
i see we skipped the part about whether it was the same tower.
ever carry a 4X8 sheet of plywood on a windy day? just that small surface area is enough to push you around like a leaf.
if'n the towers could withstand hurricane force winds, then these planes hitting them were like a balmy breeze to the towers.
the planes ripped their way into the towers without visually slowing down, like the proverbial hot knife through butter. it looked like the tower opened up and swallowed them. and as we can see the forward momentum of the planes was used mostly to shred steel, and not budge the tower.
i really don't think dampers can convert (horizontal) kinetic energy instantly into (vertical) , ummmmm, what kind of energy? invisible dark matter energy, maybe?
how can something 'bounce back' if it hasn't moved? i don't care if it was made of pure rubber(which is what the dampeners were made of)
hmmmm. maybe there was a bomb in the basement that caused the tower to shake. just a thought.
and, incidentally, a sound is not a shock wave. they don't travel at the same speed, now, do they?
and speaking of shock waves, what caused a fireman's hat to blow off from the shock wave coming from BELOW as the towers began collapsing? overpressure down the freight elevator shaft, no doubt. probably some errant jet fuel, too, maybe 50000 gallons for the basement, 50000 for the mechanical floors, etc. that stuff is MAGIC!
Tell you what pal. You tell me what angle difference there would be in a building that is viewed from 1000 feet away when it moves a maximum of 1 meter.
In all of the photos and videos of the towers being hit it would simply be impossible for anyone to detect the movement of the top from street level.
Witness testimony of the impacts show that the building did in fact move a lot, gyprock cracked, lights fell people were startled by the sudden movement and noise.
The momentum of the planes was obviously transferred to the towers. You say the planes were not visibly slowed down. Yet you also state that the planes were shredded and I assume you know that what came out the other side was much less than a whole aircraft so it obviously slowed down.
Perhaps you mean that it did not appear to slow down in the 0.1 seconds it took to fully enter the building. Is there some reason you can supply that would suggest it would be visible?
The NIST report shows that the debris was moving, on average 100 mph slower after moving through the wall.
A hurricane will distribute its wind load over the entire wall of the building. The plane impacts concentrated their force at one, high, floor. Care to wonder how that would affect the building's response or will you continue to prove your own failures in analysis.
As for Rodriguez, he did not actually witness any explosion from the basement. He states he heard it from the basement and later found people who said it had come from the elevator shaft. Fact is he is hearing the sound of the impact that has been transmitted via the building's structure to the basement. This would be the first time he heard anything since sound travels faster in a solid than through the air.
Fact is Rodriguez has absolutely no way to determine that the second sound he heard was the aircraft impact, NONE!
Another point about W.R., he stated that he usually gets to work about 8:30 but was half an hour late that day. uhh, the buildings were hit at about 8:45, 15 minutes before he says he got to work. It appears he gets things a little mixed up in the time line thing.
Thank you.
adoucette gives thanks for "Quote abuse" Now is that not fitting.
The quotes - an example of what is considered abuse.
"I was watching the fire, watching the people
jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually
looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually
looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the
whole bottom I could see óó I could see two sides of it and the
other side óó it just looked like that floor blew out.
I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in
some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually
it just collapsed.
I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in
some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually
it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that
there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.
The realization hit that itís going to fall down, the topís coming off. I was still ?thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole thing is
coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting
to fly down. The top is going to topple off there."
The so called abuse is that 911review, when quoting THE WITNESS Battalion Chief Brian Dixon, leaves out the - "Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out."
Now what part of his evidence is to be given the more weight? Is it his eyewitness interpretation of the event or the part where he has a "guess in some sense of time"? This guess one and a half months after the event and gag orders all round.
Which part would a court deem admissable?
The desperation is heart warming.
The quotes - an example of what is considered abuse.
"I was watching the fire, watching the people
jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually
looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually
looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the
whole bottom I could see óó I could see two sides of it and the
other side óó it just looked like that floor blew out.
I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in
some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually
it just collapsed.
I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in
some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually
it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that
there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.
The realization hit that itís going to fall down, the topís coming off. I was still ?thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole thing is
coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting
to fly down. The top is going to topple off there."
The so called abuse is that 911review, when quoting THE WITNESS Battalion Chief Brian Dixon, leaves out the - "Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out."
Now what part of his evidence is to be given the more weight? Is it his eyewitness interpretation of the event or the part where he has a "guess in some sense of time"? This guess one and a half months after the event and gag orders all round.
Which part would a court deem admissable?
The desperation is heart warming.
QUOTE
Heller is discredited, move on.
This is too extreme a view, and as I doubt anybody here who is a frequent poster is an architect (with or without a degree in architecture from an accredited school), then none of us should post anything, if this is the rule....
My cousin is an architect, but some of my questions to her were answered by "I don't know, you have to ask an engineer." Does this mean that licensed architects are "discredited", also?
Finally, you don't know whether or not Hoffman ever made such a claim, or not. If not, Heller is lying, but if so, his sin was citing Hoffman as a reference without verifying his claim.
As there are many people who cite Bazant Zhou and never bothered to verify it's usefulness (which I suspect is nil, even in principle*, for it's stated purpose) I wouldn't go overboard in this case, either.
* I have asked here and at apollohoax.net whether or not "dynamic elastic resistance" even models 1st order effects in a WTC scenario, but nobody has given me an answer.
Good points by 'guest' & 'metamars' above.
I'm just taking a break from a number of business emergencies at the moment, and don't have time to address (in depth) the list of bs spread by the 'official conspiracy supporters' since my last visit. I hope to get back to it by tomorrow.
It is laughable the biased nonsense being posted by these 'shills' who twist, and dance in attempts to support the official fairy tale.
Wish I had the time (like they seem to) to just sit here and post away at all hours of the day & night. It really makes me wonder what these people do for an actual 'living' (not that I have to wonder very hard)
Later.
I'm just taking a break from a number of business emergencies at the moment, and don't have time to address (in depth) the list of bs spread by the 'official conspiracy supporters' since my last visit. I hope to get back to it by tomorrow.
It is laughable the biased nonsense being posted by these 'shills' who twist, and dance in attempts to support the official fairy tale.
Wish I had the time (like they seem to) to just sit here and post away at all hours of the day & night. It really makes me wonder what these people do for an actual 'living'
(not that I have to wonder very hard)Later.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 17 2005, 07:10 PM)
QUOTE
Heller is discredited, move on.
This is too extreme a view, and as I doubt anybody here who is a frequent poster is an architect (with or without a degree in architecture from an accredited school), then none of us should post anything, if this is the rule....
My cousin is an architect, but some of my questions to her were answered by "I don't know, you have to ask an engineer." Does this mean that licensed architects are "discredited", also?
Finally, you don't know whether or not Hoffman ever made such a claim, or not. If not, Heller is lying, but if so, his sin was citing Hoffman as a reference without verifying his claim.
As there are many people who cite Bazant Zhou and never bothered to verify it's usefulness (which I suspect is nil, even in principle*, for it's stated purpose) I wouldn't go overboard in this case, either.
* I have asked here and at apollohoax.net whether or not "dynamic elastic resistance" even models 1st order effects in a WTC scenario, but nobody has given me an answer.
Heller is discredited not because he is not an architect, he ius discredited for pasing himself off as one, for alligning himself with Hufschmid and for erroneous calculations.
If you wish to give him as much weight as any poster here, fine, but as an expert he is discredited.
Bazant's credentials are however intact , his books on aspects of engineering are accepted by the community. You say that the dynamic elastic analysis is useless but you do not have the qualifications to make that claim nor do you quote anyone who does have them as saying so.
QUOTE
Wish I had the time (like they seem to) to just sit here and post away at all hours of the day & night. It really makes me wonder what these people do for an actual 'living' (not that I have to wonder very hard)
I travel a lot. I post from multiple time zones, so it might appear I'm up early/late, when it really isn't that early/late for me. Don't know about others, I don't pay attention to times (particularly since the time my posts are dated bear no relationship to any time zone I'm in)
Arthur
I just thought that in order to lighten the spirit around here, we could all sing along to a popular holiday song.
You'd better watch out!
You'd better not cry!
You'd better not pout!
I'm telling you why,
N-S-A is coming to town.
They're making a list
and checking it twice.
They're gonna' find out who's naughty and nice,
N-S-A is coming to town.
Refrain
They see you when you're sleeping.
They know when you're awake.
They know if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!
You'd better watch out!
You'd better not cry!
You'd better not pout!
I'm telling you why,
N-S-A is coming to town.
A decorating tip from: patriot act.com: As a substitute for tinsel, try running a copy of the Bill Of Rights through a shredder. The shreds will give your tree that special look that says; when your well positioned in society, who needs civil liberties. Happy Holidays Y'all!
Mel; Excellent post! Well thought out, nicely executed. Well done.
You'd better watch out!
You'd better not cry!
You'd better not pout!
I'm telling you why,
N-S-A is coming to town.
They're making a list
and checking it twice.
They're gonna' find out who's naughty and nice,
N-S-A is coming to town.
Refrain
They see you when you're sleeping.
They know when you're awake.
They know if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!
You'd better watch out!
You'd better not cry!
You'd better not pout!
I'm telling you why,
N-S-A is coming to town.
A decorating tip from: patriot act.com: As a substitute for tinsel, try running a copy of the Bill Of Rights through a shredder. The shreds will give your tree that special look that says; when your well positioned in society, who needs civil liberties. Happy Holidays Y'all!
Mel; Excellent post! Well thought out, nicely executed. Well done.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 17 2005, 06:10 PM)
adoucette gives thanks for "Quote abuse" Now is that not fitting.
The quotes - an example of what is considered abuse.
"I was watching the fire, watching the people
jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually
looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually
looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the
whole bottom I could see óó I could see two sides of it and the
other side óó it just looked like that floor blew out.
I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in
some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually
it just collapsed.
I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in
some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually
it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that
there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.
The realization hit that itís going to fall down, the topís coming off. I was still ?thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole thing is
coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting
to fly down. The top is going to topple off there."
The so called abuse is that 911review, when quoting THE WITNESS Battalion Chief Brian Dixon, leaves out the - "Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out."
Now what part of his evidence is to be given the more weight? Is it his eyewitness interpretation of the event or the part where he has a "guess in some sense of time"? This guess one and a half months after the event and gag orders all round.
Which part would a court deem admissable?
The desperation is heart warming.
Both, people are allowed to have both an immediate reaction and sober second thought after more information has been learned.
If first reactions were the only true measure then I have to remind all that Foxx says that at first he believed that the buildings fell due to the effects of hijacked planes and subsequent fires, that Islamic fundentalist terrorists were responsible for all of this.
By your own measure then zoctoberfest, Foxx should not be believed as he now states he believes?
The quotes - an example of what is considered abuse.
"I was watching the fire, watching the people
jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually
looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually
looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the
whole bottom I could see óó I could see two sides of it and the
other side óó it just looked like that floor blew out.
I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in
some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually
it just collapsed.
I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in
some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually
it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that
there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.
The realization hit that itís going to fall down, the topís coming off. I was still ?thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole thing is
coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting
to fly down. The top is going to topple off there."
The so called abuse is that 911review, when quoting THE WITNESS Battalion Chief Brian Dixon, leaves out the - "Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out."
Now what part of his evidence is to be given the more weight? Is it his eyewitness interpretation of the event or the part where he has a "guess in some sense of time"? This guess one and a half months after the event and gag orders all round.
Which part would a court deem admissable?
The desperation is heart warming.
Both, people are allowed to have both an immediate reaction and sober second thought after more information has been learned.
If first reactions were the only true measure then I have to remind all that Foxx says that at first he believed that the buildings fell due to the effects of hijacked planes and subsequent fires, that Islamic fundentalist terrorists were responsible for all of this.
By your own measure then zoctoberfest, Foxx should not be believed as he now states he believes?
QUOTE
Heller is discredited not because he is not an architect, he ius discredited for pasing himself off as one, for alligning himself with Hufschmid and for erroneous calculations.
How did you came to the conclusion that Heller is passing himself off as an architect? The Garlic and Grass article says, on the bottom,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Heller is discredited not because he is not an architect, he ius discredited for pasing himself off as one, for alligning himself with Hufschmid and for erroneous calculations. |
How did you came to the conclusion that Heller is passing himself off as an architect? The Garlic and Grass article says, on the bottom,
Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.
Thus, he is claiming to be a builder, not an architect (or a physicist, for that matter.). So, no doubt, you are referring to some other wep page where Heller makes the claim of being an architect. What is the URL of that page?
QUOTE
If you wish to give him as much weight as any poster here, fine, but as an expert he is discredited.
Unfair, unless he really does claim to be an architect or a physicist. If you merely said that, despite a relevant background, he is not an expert, I would have no quarrel with you. Perhaps you want to blame him for claims that other people made for him? That is also grossly unfair, not to mention dishonest.
Please clarify.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If you wish to give him as much weight as any poster here, fine, but as an expert he is discredited. |
Unfair, unless he really does claim to be an architect or a physicist. If you merely said that, despite a relevant background, he is not an expert, I would have no quarrel with you. Perhaps you want to blame him for claims that other people made for him? That is also grossly unfair, not to mention dishonest.
Please clarify.
Bazant's credentials are however intact , his books on aspects of engineering are accepted by the community. You say that the dynamic elastic analysis is useless but you do not have the qualifications to make that claim nor do you quote anyone who does have them as saying so.
I have derived a contradiction based on BZ, and furthermore I see no real justification for his analysis in WTC, to determine the sorts of things that they are claiming. That doesn't mean that elastic dynamic analysis is not useful, at all, in engineering. JayUtah at apollohoax.net has indicated, unambiguously, that it is of use in studying structural failure in metal, in some circumstances such as in the fluttering of an airplane wing.
However, when I put the question, on that forum, about the proper use of this analysis, and ask specifically whether or not it is useful in the sense of first order effects, etc., I did not get an answer, from JayUtah or anybody else.
For the non-techies that visit this board, the consideration of proper domain for various equations and theories is no trivial matter. E.g., there's not a single particle physicist in the world who doesn't "believe" in special relativity and, furthermore, doesn't use it (at least implicitly) day in and day out in their work. However, there's also not a single particle physicist in the world who believes that special relativity will hold up when dealing with spacetime scales of Planck length. (Otherwise, the string theorists are wasting their time
)That fact that Steven Weinberg has a Nobel Prize in Physics and has published reputably doesn't mean that, if he's foolish enough to claim that special relativity works just fine a Planck-length scales, anybody will take him seriously.
Perhaps you have sincerely conflated these two ideas:
1) elastic dynamic analysis is useless ("in general" is implicit)
2) elastic dynamic analysis is useless for explaining the WTC collapse
I have now clearly (I hope) explained to you the difference. Just to dot my i's and cross my t's:
1) implies that there is no domain, at all, where elastic dynamic analysis is useful
I have never said that. As I have clearly stated that I don't understand it, 100%, it would be an unlikely claim to make, don't you think?
2) implies that elastic dynamic analysis is being misapplied, in a way that makes it's conclusion quite useless in the BZ WTC paper.
I have indeed stated my belief that I believe BZ is useless for reaching the conclusions they did re WTC. I don't recall whether or not I was careful, in each and every instance, of making the "for reaching the conclusions they did re WTC" explicit, when it wasn't clear from the context, but this is certainly my meaning, as it must be, since I have also clearly stated that I don't understand it 100%.
Since you have such great confidence in BZ, please answer this very basic questions, and provide a references:
Does elastic dynamic analyis [b]even reasonably tell us about first order effect in a WTC scenario, and where is the proof of that, in terms of computer simulations on simpler, but analogous systems? * [/B]
In other words, for what domain (= initial conditions + boudary conditions + etc.) is this useful, in what ways is it useful, and how do these considerations of proper domain relate to the specifics of the WTC towers?
FWIW, I suspect that BZ is useful for small perturbations in stiff metals such as in the WTC, before significant compression and flexing perturbations that would at all resemble what could reasonably have occured, and before fracutring. I believe it is also useful for less stiff metals, undergoing periodic motions, such as a fluttering airplane wing.
* proof on physical systems would also be of interest, though that seem unlikely in today's world of cheap and powerful computing.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Dec 17 2005, 09:54 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 17 2005, 06:10 PM)
Which part would a court deem admissable?
Both, people are allowed to have both an immediate reaction and sober second thought after more information has been learned.
By your own measure then zoctoberfest, Foxx should not be believed as he now states he believes?
well we don't know if foxx had his whole family threatened by the secret service, however, it logically follows that anyone speaking against the one-eyed pyramid can practically have their whole family erased from history.
there is also a big difference between reinterpreting an event based on propoganda and personal memory, and reinterpreting an event based on empirical research.
so, anyway, eyewitness testimony is most valuable closest to the event. the mind has a tendency to rationalise information into know lexicons, ie. belief systems, over time.
now, being a fireman, i assume his perception is quite accute when he is actually involved in a life and death battle with his lifetime nemesis, ie. fire and it's effects.
this fireman wasn't even necessarrily threatened. he could just have been hypnotised like the rest of society. his new belief system would mould his perception of what he saw.
he used the most efficient language at the time to describe what he was seeing. he's stuttering, fer chrissakes. his is not filtering what he says, but rather, looking for the most appropriate words to describe(unwrite? haha) what he has seen.
what WOULD a court deem admissable? lol. apparently nothing. i don't see any 911 court cases going anywhere except the dismissal bin.
If you really want to get into it, you can find FEMA's recommendations for structural design here, under the link titled, "2003 NEHRP Provisions." You will also find the commentary interesting, particularly the commentary on Chapter 5, and I'd pay special attention to the appendix to the commentary as well. Nonlinear collapse analysis is covered, and shows how structures respond during the elastic phase and after the yield point is reached. Note the "mechanism" discussion quite carefully, and note as well that at the point where a "mechanism" has been formed, you are looking at multiple local collapses of the structure.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Foxx
As far as the 50 ton press, I am well aware that it did not weigh 50 tons - it was simply a 50 ton hydraulic press. So what? Whether it weighed 2 tons or 5 tons a jet-fuel fireball (which is NOT a thermobaric weapon) is not going to 'move it about'. Pecararo said it was 'gone'. where did it go? Don't tell me, I know... the thermobaric bomb melted it, Right? Maybe that's where the molten metal in the basement came from.
As far as the 50 ton press, I am well aware that it did not weigh 50 tons - it was simply a 50 ton hydraulic press. So what? Whether it weighed 2 tons or 5 tons a jet-fuel fireball (which is NOT a thermobaric weapon) is not going to 'move it about'. Pecararo said it was 'gone'. where did it go? Don't tell me, I know... the thermobaric bomb melted it, Right? Maybe that's where the molten metal in the basement came from.
As an attempt to respond to the above a government apologist posts the following...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Foxx As far as the 50 ton press, I am well aware that it did not weigh 50 tons - it was simply a 50 ton hydraulic press. So what? Whether it weighed 2 tons or 5 tons a jet-fuel fireball (which is NOT a thermobaric weapon) is not going to 'move it about'. Pecararo said it was 'gone'. where did it go? Don't tell me, I know... the thermobaric bomb melted it, Right? Maybe that's where the molten metal in the basement came from. |
As an attempt to respond to the above a government apologist posts the following...
2 Tons or 5 tons?????
I'd say 300 lbs, 400 tops for a deluxe model with multi-speed ram.
Technical Stats
• OAL: 74H x 50W x 31-1/2D
• Range: 0 - 28-3/4 in
• Size: 50 Ton
I can't count the times I've seen this same picture posted by official story supporters as an attempt to 'discredit' the implications of Pecararo's statement.... >shakes head<
In my view, posting of pictures like above are obvious obfuscations in an attempt to muddy the waters, and avoid true un-biased discussion of Pecararo's testimony...
QUOTE
At about 6:45 he went to the mechanical shop in the second subbasement...the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke {?}...When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone...
“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!”
“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!”
Let's face some honest FACTS here.
Based upon Pecararo's statement, none of us can provide 'evidence' of what model of '50 ton press', Pecararo referred to, that was actually used in the WTC machine shop... can we?
Does anyone have a receipt... or information on what model 50 ton press was installed in the machine shop at WTC?
I work around an industrial environment; during the course of business, visit various machine shops, and am familiar with commercial tools.
It is quite obvious to me that those who post pictures of a '50 ton press' (like above), have absolutely no experience of getting their 'hands dirty' in a real industrial shop, and probably have never even visited one.
The above '50 ton press' is a 'home workshop' model (probably imported from Taiwan).
Sure, It will perform a 50 ton press duty for 'home-shop' applications.
Now let's have a look at some REAL commercial industrial use hydraulic presses such as one might find in a proper 'machine shop'.
Here's a '6-ton' commercial hydraulic press...
Here's a ' 35 ton' commercial hydraulic press...
Here's a ' 45 ton' commercial hydraulic press...
And here's a ' 50 ton' commercial hydraulic press...
While I think none of us can provide actual 'proof' (that I have seen so far) of the exact model of 50 ton press that was employed in the WTC machine shop... I'm a little sceptical that they went out and bought a hydraulic press for their machine shops from 'Canadian Tire' or 'Home Depot' to service the WTC needs.
Anyone else believe that?
The above 'home-workshop' model posted by adoucette clearly shows either...
* his propensity to obfuscating bias... or
* his ignorance of real industrial machinery.
It should also be noted that while posting pictures of home-workshop ' 50 ton presses', the official conspiracy theorists always seem to avoid the main point...
EVEN IF (although highly unlikely) that a home-workshop model was used in the WTC machine shop...
What happened to it? Where did it go? Pecararo said it was 'GONE'. Did the muslims steal it?
They never want to get into too deep of a rational discussion of what may have realistically happened to it.
Just post a nonsense photo (in an attempt to discredit Pecararo's statement)... and move on to the next obfuscation.
Any reasonable person will recognize the games these people play to prop-up the long-since discredited 'official fairy tale'.
I am NOT saying that the pictures above of commercial 50 ton presses are 'proof' that the press in the WTC machine shop WAS one of these commericial types, but it certainly is much more likely that it was more similar to these models, than the home-shop ' 50-ton press' like the one at the top of this post.
And regarding the underground explosions, let us not forget the opinion submitted by Schneibster...
Thanks, Schneibster ... now read again Mike Pecararos statement...
Thanks, Schneibster ... now read again Mike Pecararos statement...
At about 6:45 he went to the mechanical shop in the second subbasement...the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke...
...When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
An interesting choice of words...'gone' - could be taken as 'strewn about', I suppose...but more likely refers to 'shattered'...
Now the word 'rubble' seems far more likely to mean 'shattered'.
Now the word 'rubble' seems far more likely to mean 'shattered'.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said.
And this is the most convincing yet when someone is talking about parking garage walls turned to 'rubble'.
Concrete parking garage walls are not just 'moved about', nor or they turned to 'rubble' by a fuel atomization explosion UNLESS MAYBE it was truly a 'thermobarbic weapon' as theorized by adoucette... (highly unlikely that a thermobarbic weapon was randomly developed by this sentient fuel while making its way to the basement).
As Pecararo speaks of concrete walls being turned to 'rubble', I think it is quite rational to conclude that they were not just 'thrown about' (to use your term), but rather 'shattered' (as per your other term). To Quote YOUR words again...
It appears you are supporting our contention by your own statement.
Now let us not forget that this 'explosion' not only issued forth in the basement levels, but also on the ground level lobby, which brings us around again to the question that all the 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters wish to avoid, that being...
the 'SHATTERING' of 3" thick glass windows in the lobby. Do you get the impression from Yasana Mutuanot's description of this "fireball filled with sand & heat" that it just threw these three story windows about?...
It appears you are supporting our contention by your own statement.
Now let us not forget that this 'explosion' not only issued forth in the basement levels, but also on the ground level lobby, which brings us around again to the question that all the 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters wish to avoid, that being...
the 'SHATTERING' of 3" thick glass windows in the lobby. Do you get the impression from Yasana Mutuanot's description of this "fireball filled with sand & heat" that it just threw these three story windows about?...
The lobby windows shattered as she stumbled out of the building and fell.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/spec...termath/1051698
So... now according to your terms, you have switched sides and support the fact that the explosion was ...
quote: "most likely a high explosive"?
Still waiting for an answer.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion.
Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion.
Thanks, Schneibster ... now read again Mike Pecararos statement...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Schneibster Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion. |
Thanks, Schneibster ... now read again Mike Pecararos statement...
At about 6:45 he went to the mechanical shop in the second subbasement...the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke...
...When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
An interesting choice of words...'gone' - could be taken as 'strewn about', I suppose...but more likely refers to 'shattered'...
QUOTE
“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!”
Now the word 'rubble' seems far more likely to mean 'shattered'.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” |
Now the word 'rubble' seems far more likely to mean 'shattered'.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said.
And this is the most convincing yet when someone is talking about parking garage walls turned to 'rubble'.
Concrete parking garage walls are not just 'moved about', nor or they turned to 'rubble' by a fuel atomization explosion UNLESS MAYBE it was truly a 'thermobarbic weapon' as theorized by adoucette... (highly unlikely that a thermobarbic weapon was randomly developed by this sentient fuel while making its way to the basement).
As Pecararo speaks of concrete walls being turned to 'rubble', I think it is quite rational to conclude that they were not just 'thrown about' (to use your term), but rather 'shattered' (as per your other term). To Quote YOUR words again...
QUOTE
Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion.
It appears you are supporting our contention by your own statement.
Now let us not forget that this 'explosion' not only issued forth in the basement levels, but also on the ground level lobby, which brings us around again to the question that all the 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters wish to avoid, that being...
the 'SHATTERING' of 3" thick glass windows in the lobby. Do you get the impression from Yasana Mutuanot's description of this "fireball filled with sand & heat" that it just threw these three story windows about?...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thus, if you see things shattered by an explosion, it is most likely a high explosive; but if you see them thrown around by an explosion, it is most likely a fuel-air explosion. |
It appears you are supporting our contention by your own statement.
Now let us not forget that this 'explosion' not only issued forth in the basement levels, but also on the ground level lobby, which brings us around again to the question that all the 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters wish to avoid, that being...
the 'SHATTERING' of 3" thick glass windows in the lobby. Do you get the impression from Yasana Mutuanot's description of this "fireball filled with sand & heat" that it just threw these three story windows about?...
The lobby windows shattered as she stumbled out of the building and fell.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/spec...termath/1051698
So... now according to your terms, you have switched sides and support the fact that the explosion was ...
quote: "most likely a high explosive"?
Still waiting for an answer.
There is no reason for them to have a commercial hydraulic press like the ones you pictured in the machine shop of the WTC. These guys are doing routine maint around the building and would be bending sheet and tubing etc. The ones you show are made for specific commercial uses, typically on a manufacturing floor. A machine shop on the other hand would have a GENERAL PURPOSE one, more like the one I showed.
And, actually it was the first picture that came up in Google, which might be why you see it so much.
And by the way, its not some cheap Home Depot unit either. If you'll notice its a fairly substantial piece of equipment.
This type of GENERAL PURPOSE hydraulic press is what one WOULD expect to find in a machine shop. This one is a tad more expensive, but still in the same weight range.
But the point is, YOU don't know what was there, nor do I. But you draw conclusions that simply aren't warrented by the facts.
More importantly, you posted numerous times about a "50 ton hydraulic press" being "just gone", now this is a physics board, and its not likely that everyone reading this would know that that description is the amount of force it can apply and not the weight of the unit. You now say, you've been confronted with this before, yet you DISHONESTLY presented the same info and only come clean when someone calls you on it, at which point you trot out these COMMERCIAL presses used for manufacturing and say, see, they can be huge.
BS, you were being dishonest and apparently will do anything to prove your point.
Maybe you think the end justifies the means, but you are wrong. Credibility, once lost, is nearly impossible to regain.
Arthur
And, actually it was the first picture that came up in Google, which might be why you see it so much.
And by the way, its not some cheap Home Depot unit either. If you'll notice its a fairly substantial piece of equipment.
This type of GENERAL PURPOSE hydraulic press is what one WOULD expect to find in a machine shop. This one is a tad more expensive, but still in the same weight range.
But the point is, YOU don't know what was there, nor do I. But you draw conclusions that simply aren't warrented by the facts.
More importantly, you posted numerous times about a "50 ton hydraulic press" being "just gone", now this is a physics board, and its not likely that everyone reading this would know that that description is the amount of force it can apply and not the weight of the unit. You now say, you've been confronted with this before, yet you DISHONESTLY presented the same info and only come clean when someone calls you on it, at which point you trot out these COMMERCIAL presses used for manufacturing and say, see, they can be huge.
BS, you were being dishonest and apparently will do anything to prove your point.
Maybe you think the end justifies the means, but you are wrong. Credibility, once lost, is nearly impossible to regain.
Arthur
I have another question for the 'pancake theory' people that has been asked many times before, but in all my reading, has never been answered. Namely:
Why do controlled demolition companies have to go thru all the trouble of planting explosives at painstakingly calculated areas of a building, and setting these explosives off in perfectly timed sequence, just to bring a building straight down on itself?
It has been shown conclusively on Sept. 11/2001, that there is now two new, relatively simple techniques for bringing down high-rise towers:
1. This technique is my favorite. It has the most 'wow' appeal.
i) Pick any floor in the high rise that you like (it doesn't seem to matter which one -- the resulting collapse will be the same). Pour a small amount of kerosene on that floor, sprinkle some other combustible materials around (you should be able to find some cheap stuff at your local landfill).
ii) Plant some directed charges on the outside of the building on the same floor.
iii) Let the bombs go, and one short hour later, down comes the building in a nice, symmetrical pile of rubble -- rubble whose main constituents are mostly the right size for instantly carting away.
2. As a less-flashy alternative, do the following:
i) Use a wrecking ball (or if the budget permits, some directed charges) to knock out a section of one edge of the building (and for this, it doesn't seem to matter where or how much material you remove...the building is guaranteed to come straight down regardless of what you do -- randomness seems to be the secret here).
ii) Put a large tank of oil/gas/kerosene in the basement of the tower (which you choose doesn't really matter, for as has been shown on 9/11, it is the smoke produced from burning this fuel that is the active agent in bringing down the building, not the fire).
iii) Light the tank of fuel on fire and then set up your volleyball nets and bring out the Bocce balls, 'cause this technique takes a little longer than the first. You're looking at about a 6 hour wait. But fear not, as the large amount of smoke, and to a much lesser extent, small fires, guarantee a symmetrical collapse.
I'm thinking of starting up my own CD company, and with these extraordinarily inexpensive techniques, I'll soon have a nice monopoly as all those other, over-priced joints go out of business. FEMA and NIST would certainly back up my business proposition (they already have with their multi-million dollar reports...break some trusses and columns, light a fire, and global, disproportionate collapse is guaranteed).
Anyone want to get in on this venture with me?
Metamars; you have often stated in here that we should be printing off physics papers and asking local structural engineers to look at them. I suggest we also start pressuring controlled demolition companies to give us a full, open account of their views of 9/11, and ask them why they go thru all the trouble they do when there are now 3 documented examples of how easy the task really is?
I should note that I did email CDI about a year and a half ago, asking them to confirm or deny that the term 'pull' is CDI-industry jargon for 'bring it down'. Not surprisingly, I didn't get a reply (how hard would it be to type 'Yes/No', and click 'Send'?).
Why do controlled demolition companies have to go thru all the trouble of planting explosives at painstakingly calculated areas of a building, and setting these explosives off in perfectly timed sequence, just to bring a building straight down on itself?
It has been shown conclusively on Sept. 11/2001, that there is now two new, relatively simple techniques for bringing down high-rise towers:
1. This technique is my favorite. It has the most 'wow' appeal.
i) Pick any floor in the high rise that you like (it doesn't seem to matter which one -- the resulting collapse will be the same). Pour a small amount of kerosene on that floor, sprinkle some other combustible materials around (you should be able to find some cheap stuff at your local landfill).
ii) Plant some directed charges on the outside of the building on the same floor.
iii) Let the bombs go, and one short hour later, down comes the building in a nice, symmetrical pile of rubble -- rubble whose main constituents are mostly the right size for instantly carting away.
2. As a less-flashy alternative, do the following:
i) Use a wrecking ball (or if the budget permits, some directed charges) to knock out a section of one edge of the building (and for this, it doesn't seem to matter where or how much material you remove...the building is guaranteed to come straight down regardless of what you do -- randomness seems to be the secret here).
ii) Put a large tank of oil/gas/kerosene in the basement of the tower (which you choose doesn't really matter, for as has been shown on 9/11, it is the smoke produced from burning this fuel that is the active agent in bringing down the building, not the fire).
iii) Light the tank of fuel on fire and then set up your volleyball nets and bring out the Bocce balls, 'cause this technique takes a little longer than the first. You're looking at about a 6 hour wait. But fear not, as the large amount of smoke, and to a much lesser extent, small fires, guarantee a symmetrical collapse.
I'm thinking of starting up my own CD company, and with these extraordinarily inexpensive techniques, I'll soon have a nice monopoly as all those other, over-priced joints go out of business. FEMA and NIST would certainly back up my business proposition (they already have with their multi-million dollar reports...break some trusses and columns, light a fire, and global, disproportionate collapse is guaranteed).
Anyone want to get in on this venture with me?
Metamars; you have often stated in here that we should be printing off physics papers and asking local structural engineers to look at them. I suggest we also start pressuring controlled demolition companies to give us a full, open account of their views of 9/11, and ask them why they go thru all the trouble they do when there are now 3 documented examples of how easy the task really is?
I should note that I did email CDI about a year and a half ago, asking them to confirm or deny that the term 'pull' is CDI-industry jargon for 'bring it down'. Not surprisingly, I didn't get a reply (how hard would it be to type 'Yes/No', and click 'Send'?).
[QUOTE=adoucette,Dec 17 2005, 06:15 PM]
Maybe you think the end justifies the means, but you are wrong. Credibility, once lost, is nearly impossible to regain.
If only that were true. Last time I checked, the bush administration was still in office. Talk about irretrievably, damaged credibility.
Maybe you think the end justifies the means, but you are wrong. Credibility, once lost, is nearly impossible to regain.
If only that were true. Last time I checked, the bush administration was still in office. Talk about irretrievably, damaged credibility.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 18 2005, 02:15 AM)
Maybe you think the end justifies the means, but you are wrong. Credibility, once lost, is nearly impossible to regain.
Could someone please hit Arthur in the "pot" with Schneibster's "kettle".
Arthur, do you still find Schneibster credible?
Could someone please hit Arthur in the "pot" with Schneibster's "kettle".
Arthur, do you still find Schneibster credible?
QUOTE (yesitdid+)
stallion,
I have not ignored those descriptions. They describe nothing that could not be expected to be observed when the building collapsed.
If you honestly believe what you're posting is the truth, then I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I respect your opinion - if you honestly believe what you are posting here is truth.
I have not ignored those descriptions. They describe nothing that could not be expected to be observed when the building collapsed.
If you honestly believe what you're posting is the truth, then I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I respect your opinion - if you honestly believe what you are posting here is truth.
QUOTE (yesitdid+)
One of your quotes goes on to state that he thought it could have been electrical explosions that produced the flashes(why did you ignore that?)
"Commissioner Stephen Gregory of the Bureau of Communications"
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing(sic) down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions
Indeed when the upper section came down it would have caused an incredible shaking in the rest of the building not unlike an earthquake. This would have produced an lot of noise and electrical flashes as wires severed and fixtures came down.
That terrific boom as the collapse started,,,, just what sound do you suppose the upper section hitting the next floors would make? What? a hissing noise? a musical note? what?
This is the quote I posted:
The entire quote can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
YID, you seem to be implying that I 'left out' a particular section of the statement for devious reasons. The truth is; the entire quote is quite long and if I were to post ALL of the statements in their entirety, they would fill up several pages of this thread.
The statement from Gregory that I did post includes this quote from him;"it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding"
So if I was actually trying to be devious, I would have omitted that section too, no? And if I really didn't want folks to read the entire statements, I wouldn't provide links for them to click on so they can read the entire statements for themselves, no?
The Stephen Gregory statement that I posted a few pages back is actually in two sections. I'm pretty sure that is the only instance in that post that I posted a statement from the same person in two separate sections. If there is still confusion about his statement, here it is in its entirety as it appears on The New York Times website:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
If anyone was/is being devious, it's the 9/11 cOmmission for omitting ALL of the statements that I posted. If I'm wrong about that, YID, please post an instance where the cOmmission included at least one of those statements in their final report.
Indeed when the upper section came down it would have caused an incredible shaking in the rest of the building not unlike an earthquake. This would have produced an lot of noise and electrical flashes as wires severed and fixtures came down.
That terrific boom as the collapse started,,,, just what sound do you suppose the upper section hitting the next floors would make? What? a hissing noise? a musical note? what?
This is the quote I posted:
The entire quote can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
YID, you seem to be implying that I 'left out' a particular section of the statement for devious reasons. The truth is; the entire quote is quite long and if I were to post ALL of the statements in their entirety, they would fill up several pages of this thread.
The statement from Gregory that I did post includes this quote from him;"it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding"
So if I was actually trying to be devious, I would have omitted that section too, no? And if I really didn't want folks to read the entire statements, I wouldn't provide links for them to click on so they can read the entire statements for themselves, no?
The Stephen Gregory statement that I posted a few pages back is actually in two sections. I'm pretty sure that is the only instance in that post that I posted a statement from the same person in two separate sections. If there is still confusion about his statement, here it is in its entirety as it appears on The New York Times website:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
If anyone was/is being devious, it's the 9/11 cOmmission for omitting ALL of the statements that I posted. If I'm wrong about that, YID, please post an instance where the cOmmission included at least one of those statements in their final report.
So, stallion, I have asked a few questions that have received absolutely no response. Care to give them a try?
Sure, why not?
QUOTE
"Commissioner Stephen Gregory of the Bureau of Communications"
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing(sic) down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions
Indeed when the upper section came down it would have caused an incredible shaking in the rest of the building not unlike an earthquake. This would have produced an lot of noise and electrical flashes as wires severed and fixtures came down.
That terrific boom as the collapse started,,,, just what sound do you suppose the upper section hitting the next floors would make? What? a hissing noise? a musical note? what?
This is the quote I posted:
- Stephen Gregory , Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) flashes, explosions p 14
...I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy,
The entire quote can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
YID, you seem to be implying that I 'left out' a particular section of the statement for devious reasons. The truth is; the entire quote is quite long and if I were to post ALL of the statements in their entirety, they would fill up several pages of this thread.
The statement from Gregory that I did post includes this quote from him;"it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding"
So if I was actually trying to be devious, I would have omitted that section too, no? And if I really didn't want folks to read the entire statements, I wouldn't provide links for them to click on so they can read the entire statements for themselves, no?
The Stephen Gregory statement that I posted a few pages back is actually in two sections. I'm pretty sure that is the only instance in that post that I posted a statement from the same person in two separate sections. If there is still confusion about his statement, here it is in its entirety as it appears on The New York Times website:
- Q. Do you recall at any time, particularly when you were on West Street, any companies whose vehicles may have been parked near where you were?
A. No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. But it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one of us talked to each other about it. I mean, I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall. I was just standing next to him. i never met the man before in my lite. He knew who was I guess by my name on my coat and he called me up, you know, how are you doing? How's everything? And, oh, by the way did you... It was just a little strange.
Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.
A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes. I don't know how far down this was already. I mean, we had heard the noise but, you know, I don't know.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
If anyone was/is being devious, it's the 9/11 cOmmission for omitting ALL of the statements that I posted. If I'm wrong about that, YID, please post an instance where the cOmmission included at least one of those statements in their final report.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"Commissioner Stephen Gregory of the Bureau of Communications" I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing(sic) down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions |
Indeed when the upper section came down it would have caused an incredible shaking in the rest of the building not unlike an earthquake. This would have produced an lot of noise and electrical flashes as wires severed and fixtures came down.
That terrific boom as the collapse started,,,, just what sound do you suppose the upper section hitting the next floors would make? What? a hissing noise? a musical note? what?
This is the quote I posted:
- Stephen Gregory , Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) flashes, explosions p 14
...I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy,
The entire quote can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
YID, you seem to be implying that I 'left out' a particular section of the statement for devious reasons. The truth is; the entire quote is quite long and if I were to post ALL of the statements in their entirety, they would fill up several pages of this thread.
The statement from Gregory that I did post includes this quote from him;"it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding"
So if I was actually trying to be devious, I would have omitted that section too, no? And if I really didn't want folks to read the entire statements, I wouldn't provide links for them to click on so they can read the entire statements for themselves, no?
The Stephen Gregory statement that I posted a few pages back is actually in two sections. I'm pretty sure that is the only instance in that post that I posted a statement from the same person in two separate sections. If there is still confusion about his statement, here it is in its entirety as it appears on The New York Times website:
- Q. Do you recall at any time, particularly when you were on West Street, any companies whose vehicles may have been parked near where you were?
A. No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. But it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one of us talked to each other about it. I mean, I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall. I was just standing next to him. i never met the man before in my lite. He knew who was I guess by my name on my coat and he called me up, you know, how are you doing? How's everything? And, oh, by the way did you... It was just a little strange.
Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.
A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes. I don't know how far down this was already. I mean, we had heard the noise but, you know, I don't know.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
If anyone was/is being devious, it's the 9/11 cOmmission for omitting ALL of the statements that I posted. If I'm wrong about that, YID, please post an instance where the cOmmission included at least one of those statements in their final report.
So, stallion, I have asked a few questions that have received absolutely no response. Care to give them a try?
Sure, why not?
QUOTE (yesitdid+)
1)Given that Rodriguez was in the basement at the time of the impacts and given that basements do not have windows from which Mr.Rodriguez could see the aircraft hit the tower, how is it that he has determined that the second loud noise he heard/felt was the aircraft impact. Note that they occurred one right after the other.
He's convinced that the explosions were two seperate unrelated events. I have no reason to doubt him. Especially after reading the corroborating reports of bombs planted in the buildings.
If Rodriguez was the only person that was talking about a 9-11 conspiracy, I might be a little more hesitant to believe him. But the fact that the buildings (1, 2, and 7) all visually look like they were 'brought down' by explosives - and the fact that several onsite witnesses have stated that the buildings resembled controlled demolition - and the fact that there were news reports of bombs planted in the buildings and reports of a suspicious device being found at the scene leads me to believe that the official explanation given for why those buildings failed is total BS.
He's convinced that the explosions were two seperate unrelated events. I have no reason to doubt him. Especially after reading the corroborating reports of bombs planted in the buildings.
If Rodriguez was the only person that was talking about a 9-11 conspiracy, I might be a little more hesitant to believe him. But the fact that the buildings (1, 2, and 7) all visually look like they were 'brought down' by explosives - and the fact that several onsite witnesses have stated that the buildings resembled controlled demolition - and the fact that there were news reports of bombs planted in the buildings and reports of a suspicious device being found at the scene leads me to believe that the official explanation given for why those buildings failed is total BS.
QUOTE (yesitdid+)
2) Boyle states more than once that the firefighters were very wary of entering WTC7. He states that there were creaking noises being heard, that it did not look good and even was out of plumb. Why then is it a contention of some that WTC 7 was in no danger of collapse when right from the beginning , after WTC 1 collapsed, that the firefighters already had grave concerns about entering the building?
I would think that after two buildings at the World Trade Center had just fallen down, there was probably some concern that other buildings at the complex might fall down too. And how many people are we talking about here? One? Two? Three? Four? YID, please post links to all the references from people that say they believe that WTC 7 was going to "collapse" based on their own observation of the building.
I've seen several reports from people saying they heard that the building might "collapse", but I haven't seen that many reports from people that actually observed the building with their own eyes and ears. For example; Thomas Franklin wrote that he was told WTC 7 "was ready to fall" at 4:45 pm.. The building is said to have fallen shortly after 5 pm.. Are we supposed to believe that whoever told Franklin that the building "was ready to fall", approximately 20-30 minutes before it did, just made a lucky guess?
And why haven't we seen photographs of WTC 7's south face? I've seen some photos of a damaged corner, but no photos of the alleged 25-percent of the building's depth scooped out of the south face of WTC 7, which is said to have measured 20-storeys high. And if the story of the damage to the building is true, why did the building fall straight down?
I'm not denying that there was some damage to WTC 7's south face caused by falling debris, but was it enough to cause it to fall almost symmetrically straight down into its own footprint in less than 7 seconds?
If it was this easy to cause buildings to fall straight down into their own footprint, why don't demolition companies simply set a few fires in buildings and damage one side of it with a wrecking ball - instead of spending weeks prepping a building for controlled demolition with expensive explosives to do the job?
Have a look at this video clip of WTC 7 falling down:
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7...tion.window.wmv
If you watch it closely, you will notice that the person that shot this video seems to not know which building is about to fall down, but when this person figures out that it's WTC 7, they immediately zoom their camera in on the building and then it falls down. My question is; how did this person know when to precisely zoom their camera in on that building BEFORE it fell down? My guess is that the person filming heard explosions coming from WTC 7 and that is why they zoomed their camera in on the building just before it fell.
Whoever shot this video would be able to answer that question, no? So where is this person? Has anyone tried to contact them about this video? If so, where is their statement? I think it's safe to say that it's not in the 9/11 cOmmission's report. Did the cOmmission even bother to question this person? Hmmm?
Wouldn't it be best if EVERYTHING that happened on that day was investigated further? Maybe then we'd have more (truthful) answers about what really happened on that day, no?
If there is a possibility that bombs were planted in those buildings, which I believe there is, don't you, YID, think that EVERYTHING that occurred on 9/11 - the months leading up to 9-11 and the months following the 9-11 event, should be carefully examined - to make sure that the correct individuals responsible for the event are punished for their crime? I personally have not seen enough evidence to convince me that it's the people that the US government (and other governments) are blaming for the "attack".
I would think that after two buildings at the World Trade Center had just fallen down, there was probably some concern that other buildings at the complex might fall down too. And how many people are we talking about here? One? Two? Three? Four? YID, please post links to all the references from people that say they believe that WTC 7 was going to "collapse" based on their own observation of the building.
I've seen several reports from people saying they heard that the building might "collapse", but I haven't seen that many reports from people that actually observed the building with their own eyes and ears. For example; Thomas Franklin wrote that he was told WTC 7 "was ready to fall" at 4:45 pm.. The building is said to have fallen shortly after 5 pm.. Are we supposed to believe that whoever told Franklin that the building "was ready to fall", approximately 20-30 minutes before it did, just made a lucky guess?
And why haven't we seen photographs of WTC 7's south face? I've seen some photos of a damaged corner, but no photos of the alleged 25-percent of the building's depth scooped out of the south face of WTC 7, which is said to have measured 20-storeys high. And if the story of the damage to the building is true, why did the building fall straight down?
I'm not denying that there was some damage to WTC 7's south face caused by falling debris, but was it enough to cause it to fall almost symmetrically straight down into its own footprint in less than 7 seconds?
If it was this easy to cause buildings to fall straight down into their own footprint, why don't demolition companies simply set a few fires in buildings and damage one side of it with a wrecking ball - instead of spending weeks prepping a building for controlled demolition with expensive explosives to do the job?
Have a look at this video clip of WTC 7 falling down:
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7...tion.window.wmv
If you watch it closely, you will notice that the person that shot this video seems to not know which building is about to fall down, but when this person figures out that it's WTC 7, they immediately zoom their camera in on the building and then it falls down. My question is; how did this person know when to precisely zoom their camera in on that building BEFORE it fell down? My guess is that the person filming heard explosions coming from WTC 7 and that is why they zoomed their camera in on the building just before it fell.
Whoever shot this video would be able to answer that question, no? So where is this person? Has anyone tried to contact them about this video? If so, where is their statement? I think it's safe to say that it's not in the 9/11 cOmmission's report. Did the cOmmission even bother to question this person? Hmmm?
Wouldn't it be best if EVERYTHING that happened on that day was investigated further? Maybe then we'd have more (truthful) answers about what really happened on that day, no?
If there is a possibility that bombs were planted in those buildings, which I believe there is, don't you, YID, think that EVERYTHING that occurred on 9/11 - the months leading up to 9-11 and the months following the 9-11 event, should be carefully examined - to make sure that the correct individuals responsible for the event are punished for their crime? I personally have not seen enough evidence to convince me that it's the people that the US government (and other governments) are blaming for the "attack".
QUOTE (yesitdid+)
3) It has been pointed out that the Secret Service and other gov't agencies had large offices in the WTc buildings. How does this relate to the idea that gov't caused the attacks?
If I'm correct that there is more to the story about who really perpetrated 9-11, I don't find it too far-fetched that the ones who perpetrated it would 'blow up' something of their own to use as a pretext for accomplishing their ultimate goal. This is known as Problem-Reaction-Solution. By creating the problem, it causes a reaction (that wouldn't have existed before the problem) allowing the ones who created the problem to offer the solution (which was planned before the problem was created). This scenario makes the most sense to me. The more power someone has would increase their chances of 'getting away' with such a plan. And we know for a fact that plans like this have existed before 9-11 (see Operation Northwoods), so no I don't think that it's too far-fetched to believe that that's what may have happened.
With all of that said, I don't believe that the majority of people working within the US government were 'in on it'. That would be foolish for anyone to think that. It's my belief that most of them are not corrupt, but have been duped by a small number of very powerful and corrupt individuals, IMHO of course.
If I'm correct that there is more to the story about who really perpetrated 9-11, I don't find it too far-fetched that the ones who perpetrated it would 'blow up' something of their own to use as a pretext for accomplishing their ultimate goal. This is known as Problem-Reaction-Solution. By creating the problem, it causes a reaction (that wouldn't have existed before the problem) allowing the ones who created the problem to offer the solution (which was planned before the problem was created). This scenario makes the most sense to me. The more power someone has would increase their chances of 'getting away' with such a plan. And we know for a fact that plans like this have existed before 9-11 (see Operation Northwoods), so no I don't think that it's too far-fetched to believe that that's what may have happened.
With all of that said, I don't believe that the majority of people working within the US government were 'in on it'. That would be foolish for anyone to think that. It's my belief that most of them are not corrupt, but have been duped by a small number of very powerful and corrupt individuals, IMHO of course.
Adoucette responds...
Heh, and you base that opinion on....?
No offense Arthur, but you are talking wayyyy out of your knowledge and experience... with someone who is often in regular machine shops which are NOT production manufacturing shops.
The people I deal with during the course of my business are just small local machine shops who do exactly the type of work you refer to.... "routine maintenance" and custom fabrication of worn out parts. They are by no means 'manufacturing facilities'...(apart from refurbishing, maintenance, and fabrication such as any 'machine shop' performs).
Sorry, but you are really giving me the giggles (while at the same time pissing me off).
Take a picture or sales brochure from one of the manufacturers of the hydraulic presses you are posting pictures of, down to your local machine shop and try to sell one of these 'toys' to them. They will laugh you off the property.
Don't just take my word for it. Go to any local machine shop in your own area and check out what equipment is actually in standard use in any respectable machine shop.
The pictures I posted are of commercial quality 'presses'. 'Commercial' does not mean 'manufacturing' or 'production' presses.
A poorly equipped auto garage might purchase one of the 'presses' you have posted pictures of, for pressing seals out of auto parts, but any respectable auto machine shop will have equipment of the size I posted (and even larger).
If you think the pictures I posted were of some extraordinary presses, you would be shocked to see the press equipment in a manufacturing shop.
Some of these tools can take up 500 sq ft of warehouse space just to produce little parts.
Here is a SMALL 50 ton production press...
Here's a little larger 49 ton production press...
Not sure of the 'ton' size of this one, but it's getting into a little larger manufacturing press...
Heh, and you base that opinion on....?
No offense Arthur, but you are talking wayyyy out of your knowledge and experience... with someone who is often in regular machine shops which are NOT production manufacturing shops.
The people I deal with during the course of my business are just small local machine shops who do exactly the type of work you refer to.... "routine maintenance" and custom fabrication of worn out parts. They are by no means 'manufacturing facilities'...(apart from refurbishing, maintenance, and fabrication such as any 'machine shop' performs).
Sorry, but you are really giving me the giggles (while at the same time pissing me off).
Take a picture or sales brochure from one of the manufacturers of the hydraulic presses you are posting pictures of, down to your local machine shop and try to sell one of these 'toys' to them. They will laugh you off the property.
Don't just take my word for it. Go to any local machine shop in your own area and check out what equipment is actually in standard use in any respectable machine shop.
The pictures I posted are of commercial quality 'presses'. 'Commercial' does not mean 'manufacturing' or 'production' presses.
A poorly equipped auto garage might purchase one of the 'presses' you have posted pictures of, for pressing seals out of auto parts, but any respectable auto machine shop will have equipment of the size I posted (and even larger).
If you think the pictures I posted were of some extraordinary presses, you would be shocked to see the press equipment in a manufacturing shop.
Some of these tools can take up 500 sq ft of warehouse space just to produce little parts.
Here is a SMALL 50 ton production press...
Here's a little larger 49 ton production press...
Not sure of the 'ton' size of this one, but it's getting into a little larger manufacturing press...
And, actually it was the first picture that came up in Google, which might be why you see it so much.
And by the way, its not some cheap Home Depot unit either. If you'll notice its a fairly substantial piece of equipment.
Well, yes... for someone's home workshop. Great for little home-projects. You could do a lot with them in your garage/workshop.
And the information that it came up 'first' on Google tells us that you are depending upon punching 50 ton press into Google's search engine, and basing your 'expertise' in this area on the first result without having any real understanding about what type of equipment will be found in a typical machine shop.
I hate to burst your bubble, but you are quite wrong. You might find one in the back corner of a typical machine shop, but I wouldn't EXPECT to see such equipment in a shop that I went to... (to have work done on one of my projects).
I would take one look, and conclude.... "These guys are amateurs who are incapable of performing the job I need done."
I hate to burst your bubble, but you are quite wrong. You might find one in the back corner of a typical machine shop, but I wouldn't EXPECT to see such equipment in a shop that I went to... (to have work done on one of my projects).
I would take one look, and conclude.... "These guys are amateurs who are incapable of performing the job I need done."
But the point is, YOU don't know what was there, nor do I. But you draw conclusions that simply aren't warrented by the facts.
True (to a point), as I already stated... I do not know the actual model of press they had. But I do know they were required not to just bend 'pipe' or 'sheeting'. These guys were responsible for maintenance on the elevator lifts (amongst many other huge mechanical parts (generators, pumps, etc).
Ever seen a picture of the size of that machinery? All the machinery in the WTC was HUGE. Not just your typical car parts.
Well, .... EXCUSE MEEEE !!!!
I had no problem with 'misinterpreting such words as posted by Pecararo'.
As I work around this equipment I automatically understood what Pecararo meant by 50 ton press.
Sorry, that I forgot (or didn't take into account) that this wasn't 'common knowledge' in the empirical experience of others, which could confuse the likes of travelling salesmen, and computer programmers, and other 'office workers'.
I was scratching my head when the YID tried to make a point that '50 ton press' didn't mean it 'weighed' 50 tonnes.
From my point of view, this was 'common knowledge'. I have never implied that the press weighed 50 tonnes.
Well, .... EXCUSE MEEEE !!!!
I had no problem with 'misinterpreting such words as posted by Pecararo'.
As I work around this equipment I automatically understood what Pecararo meant by 50 ton press.
Sorry, that I forgot (or didn't take into account) that this wasn't 'common knowledge' in the empirical experience of others, which could confuse the likes of travelling salesmen, and computer programmers, and other 'office workers'.
I was scratching my head when the YID tried to make a point that '50 ton press' didn't mean it 'weighed' 50 tonnes.
From my point of view, this was 'common knowledge'. I have never implied that the press weighed 50 tonnes.
You now say, you've been confronted with this before, yet you DISHONESTLY presented the same info and only come clean when someone calls you on it, at which point you trot out these COMMERCIAL presses used for manufacturing and say, see, they can be huge.
Attack the messenger... Remember 'Saint' J Edgar Hoover!!!
Where the HELL is the DISHONESTY, TROLL.!!???
Give your head a shake. You are so busy 'playing games' and thinking that these discussions are simple nonsensical rhetorical / sophistry debates (or just a joke), that you don't recognize someone who knows what he is talking about, (while you busy yourself trying to 'make points').
Well, as far as I am concerned it is your own credibility which is damaged by posting your misunderstandings of typical tools & equipment such as should be found in a regular machine shop.
Good grief, Man... are you sure you are not Schneibster? Get your *** down to the local machine shop, before you put your foot in your mouth any more !!!
Better yet I'll post some pictures of a typical local machine shop the next time I'm there.
Who was duped?
Were the scientists at NIST in on it?
How about those at FEMA?
How many people would have to be in on it to plant explosives in sufficient quantities in the three World Trade Center buildings, not to mention the wiring of them together so they could go off in the proper sequence?
How many people would have to be in on it to supress evidence of said bombs?
What about the actual hijackings? Were "they" in on that too?
Were members of NORAD in on it?
Were members of the FAA in on it?
Were the firefighters at WTC 7 in on it?
Was Silverstein in on it?
Arthur
Who was duped?
Were the scientists at NIST in on it?
How about those at FEMA?
How many people would have to be in on it to plant explosives in sufficient quantities in the three World Trade Center buildings, not to mention the wiring of them together so they could go off in the proper sequence?
How many people would have to be in on it to supress evidence of said bombs?
What about the actual hijackings? Were "they" in on that too?
Were members of NORAD in on it?
Were members of the FAA in on it?
Were the firefighters at WTC 7 in on it?
Was Silverstein in on it?
Arthur
Sad ... The last gasps for air from a drowning man.
I think I'll pass, but if you go for it, I can suggest another technique, perhaps even easier: remove the "fire protection" from the steel frame, disable the sprinkler system, light a few propane torches next to them, and then run like the Devil!
I think I'll pass, but if you go for it, I can suggest another technique, perhaps even easier: remove the "fire protection" from the steel frame, disable the sprinkler system, light a few propane torches next to them, and then run like the Devil!
Metamars; you have often stated in here that we should be printing off physics papers and asking local structural engineers to look at them. I suggest we also start pressuring controlled demolition companies to give us a full, open account of their views of 9/11, and ask them why they go thru all the trouble they do when there are now 3 documented examples of how easy the task really is?
That would be of some interest, but the real issue is: is the collapse of WTC 1,2 & 7 possible without demolition? Everybody already knows that explosives will do the trick.
Pecararo worked as an engineer in one of the MACHINE SHOPS at WTC.
Please define 'MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS'?
Let's not confuse a 'BUILDING MAINTENANCE DEPT' (such as you might find in a 40 story office complex) with a MACHINE SHOP which serviced one of the worlds tallest structures.
The small 'machine shops' I deal with would have no capability of providing the machining services required by such a structure.
I am not involved with a 'MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS' (apart from subcontracting them for our requirements}
The largest structures 'we' deal with are a mere 250' in length ( approximately 1/4 the length / height of the WTC structures).
Although the generators / engines 'we' deal with are probably only 1/10th the size of those in a structure the size of the WTC towers, 'we' certainly WOULD NOT depend upon 'tools & equipment' such as you have proposed to service such 'structures'.
Your postulation is a joke --- truly laughable !!
Pecararo worked as an engineer in one of the MACHINE SHOPS at WTC.
Please define 'MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS'?
Let's not confuse a 'BUILDING MAINTENANCE DEPT' (such as you might find in a 40 story office complex) with a MACHINE SHOP which serviced one of the worlds tallest structures.
The small 'machine shops' I deal with would have no capability of providing the machining services required by such a structure.
I am not involved with a 'MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS' (apart from subcontracting them for our requirements}
The largest structures 'we' deal with are a mere 250' in length ( approximately 1/4 the length / height of the WTC structures).
Although the generators / engines 'we' deal with are probably only 1/10th the size of those in a structure the size of the WTC towers, 'we' certainly WOULD NOT depend upon 'tools & equipment' such as you have proposed to service such 'structures'.
Your postulation is a joke --- truly laughable !!
They DID NOT work on the Elevators, that work is done by OTIS and OTIS alone.
Not according to my understanding, but I could be wrong on this point?
Do you have a reference which supports your contention?
'Light Maintenance' is relative to the structure you are working on.
Are you just speculating and postulating?
Please define 'light maintenance' ... (what? they only took care of changing locks on doors?)
What exactly did their job parameters entail ???? Please provide references.
Thanks
Can we conclude that the 'pancake theory' people are related to the 'flat earth people' of the middle-ages?
Same old 'Attack the Messenger - Forget the Message' tactic you have always used Coastal.
The purpose in transferring the NIST quote to an html web page was simply to 'capture' the relevant sections of the NIST page.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/wtcelevators.html
As adoucette said the particular adobe document would not allow copying (for some strange reason).
I 'copied' to the html page so that it could be posted.
Sorry to disappoint you... no nefarious conspiracies behind the action.
Please give us your 'speculation' as to why this jet fuel (which was allegedly pouring down every available opening in trying to follow gravity down to the basement levels) CHOSE NOT to flow down the available shaft that Baldizzi escaped through, and why it did not flow down the other passenger express elevator (Car # 7 which went through the impact zone right down to the base of the building)?
To assist you with your speculative answer here is how NIST represents the location of the elevators...
Here is the same color-coded for ease of reference...
As can be seen the express elevators which went from the top of the building down to the basement were on one side of the core. Now have a look at the plan view schematic from NIST...
The express elevators on one side of the core are the skylobby express elevators which only ran from the base to the 2nd skylobby at the 78th floor. The alleged 'thermobaric bomb' couldn't have come down those as they didn't reach to the impact zone.
The express elevators on the other side of the core are the ones which ran to the top of the building (right through the impact zone).
If the jet-fuel fireball travelled down the express elevator shafts, Baldizzi would have been burned to death as were many other passengers caught in elevator cars within the impact zone...(Zone 3)... wouldn't she ???
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
There is no reason for them to have a commercial hydraulic press like the ones you pictured in the machine shop of the WTC. These guys are doing routine maint around the building and would be bending sheet and tubing etc. The ones you show are made for specific commercial uses, typically on a manufacturing floor. A machine shop on the other hand would have a GENERAL PURPOSE one, more like the one I showed.
There is no reason for them to have a commercial hydraulic press like the ones you pictured in the machine shop of the WTC. These guys are doing routine maint around the building and would be bending sheet and tubing etc. The ones you show are made for specific commercial uses, typically on a manufacturing floor. A machine shop on the other hand would have a GENERAL PURPOSE one, more like the one I showed.
Heh, and you base that opinion on....?
No offense Arthur, but you are talking wayyyy out of your knowledge and experience... with someone who is often in regular machine shops which are NOT production manufacturing shops.
The people I deal with during the course of my business are just small local machine shops who do exactly the type of work you refer to.... "routine maintenance" and custom fabrication of worn out parts. They are by no means 'manufacturing facilities'...(apart from refurbishing, maintenance, and fabrication such as any 'machine shop' performs).
Sorry, but you are really giving me the giggles (while at the same time pissing me off).
Take a picture or sales brochure from one of the manufacturers of the hydraulic presses you are posting pictures of, down to your local machine shop and try to sell one of these 'toys' to them. They will laugh you off the property.
Don't just take my word for it. Go to any local machine shop in your own area and check out what equipment is actually in standard use in any respectable machine shop.
The pictures I posted are of commercial quality 'presses'. 'Commercial' does not mean 'manufacturing' or 'production' presses.
A poorly equipped auto garage might purchase one of the 'presses' you have posted pictures of, for pressing seals out of auto parts, but any respectable auto machine shop will have equipment of the size I posted (and even larger).
If you think the pictures I posted were of some extraordinary presses, you would be shocked to see the press equipment in a manufacturing shop.
Some of these tools can take up 500 sq ft of warehouse space just to produce little parts.
Here is a SMALL 50 ton production press...
Here's a little larger 49 ton production press...
Not sure of the 'ton' size of this one, but it's getting into a little larger manufacturing press...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by adoucette There is no reason for them to have a commercial hydraulic press like the ones you pictured in the machine shop of the WTC. These guys are doing routine maint around the building and would be bending sheet and tubing etc. The ones you show are made for specific commercial uses, typically on a manufacturing floor. A machine shop on the other hand would have a GENERAL PURPOSE one, more like the one I showed. |
Heh, and you base that opinion on....?
No offense Arthur, but you are talking wayyyy out of your knowledge and experience... with someone who is often in regular machine shops which are NOT production manufacturing shops.
The people I deal with during the course of my business are just small local machine shops who do exactly the type of work you refer to.... "routine maintenance" and custom fabrication of worn out parts. They are by no means 'manufacturing facilities'...(apart from refurbishing, maintenance, and fabrication such as any 'machine shop' performs).
Sorry, but you are really giving me the giggles (while at the same time pissing me off).
Take a picture or sales brochure from one of the manufacturers of the hydraulic presses you are posting pictures of, down to your local machine shop and try to sell one of these 'toys' to them. They will laugh you off the property.
Don't just take my word for it. Go to any local machine shop in your own area and check out what equipment is actually in standard use in any respectable machine shop.
The pictures I posted are of commercial quality 'presses'. 'Commercial' does not mean 'manufacturing' or 'production' presses.
A poorly equipped auto garage might purchase one of the 'presses' you have posted pictures of, for pressing seals out of auto parts, but any respectable auto machine shop will have equipment of the size I posted (and even larger).
If you think the pictures I posted were of some extraordinary presses, you would be shocked to see the press equipment in a manufacturing shop.
Some of these tools can take up 500 sq ft of warehouse space just to produce little parts.
Here is a SMALL 50 ton production press...
Here's a little larger 49 ton production press...
Not sure of the 'ton' size of this one, but it's getting into a little larger manufacturing press...
And, actually it was the first picture that came up in Google, which might be why you see it so much.
And by the way, its not some cheap Home Depot unit either. If you'll notice its a fairly substantial piece of equipment.
Well, yes... for someone's home workshop. Great for little home-projects. You could do a lot with them in your garage/workshop.
And the information that it came up 'first' on Google tells us that you are depending upon punching 50 ton press into Google's search engine, and basing your 'expertise' in this area on the first result without having any real understanding about what type of equipment will be found in a typical machine shop.
QUOTE
This type of GENERAL PURPOSE hydraulic press is what one WOULD expect to find in a machine shop. This one is a tad more expensive, but still in the same weight range.
I hate to burst your bubble, but you are quite wrong. You might find one in the back corner of a typical machine shop, but I wouldn't EXPECT to see such equipment in a shop that I went to... (to have work done on one of my projects).
I would take one look, and conclude.... "These guys are amateurs who are incapable of performing the job I need done."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This type of GENERAL PURPOSE hydraulic press is what one WOULD expect to find in a machine shop. This one is a tad more expensive, but still in the same weight range. |
I hate to burst your bubble, but you are quite wrong. You might find one in the back corner of a typical machine shop, but I wouldn't EXPECT to see such equipment in a shop that I went to... (to have work done on one of my projects).
I would take one look, and conclude.... "These guys are amateurs who are incapable of performing the job I need done."
But the point is, YOU don't know what was there, nor do I. But you draw conclusions that simply aren't warrented by the facts.
True (to a point), as I already stated... I do not know the actual model of press they had. But I do know they were required not to just bend 'pipe' or 'sheeting'. These guys were responsible for maintenance on the elevator lifts (amongst many other huge mechanical parts (generators, pumps, etc).
Ever seen a picture of the size of that machinery? All the machinery in the WTC was HUGE. Not just your typical car parts.
QUOTE
More importantly, you posted numerous times about a "50 ton hydraulic press" being "just gone", now this is a physics board, and its not likely that everyone reading this would know that that description is the amount of force it can apply and not the weight of the unit.
Well, .... EXCUSE MEEEE !!!!
I had no problem with 'misinterpreting such words as posted by Pecararo'.
As I work around this equipment I automatically understood what Pecararo meant by 50 ton press.
Sorry, that I forgot (or didn't take into account) that this wasn't 'common knowledge' in the empirical experience of others, which could confuse the likes of travelling salesmen, and computer programmers, and other 'office workers'.
I was scratching my head when the YID tried to make a point that '50 ton press' didn't mean it 'weighed' 50 tonnes.
From my point of view, this was 'common knowledge'. I have never implied that the press weighed 50 tonnes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More importantly, you posted numerous times about a "50 ton hydraulic press" being "just gone", now this is a physics board, and its not likely that everyone reading this would know that that description is the amount of force it can apply and not the weight of the unit. |
Well, .... EXCUSE MEEEE !!!!
I had no problem with 'misinterpreting such words as posted by Pecararo'.
As I work around this equipment I automatically understood what Pecararo meant by 50 ton press.
Sorry, that I forgot (or didn't take into account) that this wasn't 'common knowledge' in the empirical experience of others, which could confuse the likes of travelling salesmen, and computer programmers, and other 'office workers'.
I was scratching my head when the YID tried to make a point that '50 ton press' didn't mean it 'weighed' 50 tonnes.
From my point of view, this was 'common knowledge'. I have never implied that the press weighed 50 tonnes.
You now say, you've been confronted with this before, yet you DISHONESTLY presented the same info and only come clean when someone calls you on it, at which point you trot out these COMMERCIAL presses used for manufacturing and say, see, they can be huge.
Attack the messenger... Remember 'Saint' J Edgar Hoover!!!
Where the HELL is the DISHONESTY, TROLL.!!???
Give your head a shake. You are so busy 'playing games' and thinking that these discussions are simple nonsensical rhetorical / sophistry debates (or just a joke), that you don't recognize someone who knows what he is talking about, (while you busy yourself trying to 'make points').
QUOTE
BS, you were being dishonest and apparently will do anything to prove your point.
Maybe you think the end justifies the means, but you are wrong. Credibility, once lost, is nearly impossible to regain.
Arthur
Maybe you think the end justifies the means, but you are wrong. Credibility, once lost, is nearly impossible to regain.
Arthur
Well, as far as I am concerned it is your own credibility which is damaged by posting your misunderstandings of typical tools & equipment such as should be found in a regular machine shop.
Good grief, Man... are you sure you are not Schneibster? Get your *** down to the local machine shop, before you put your foot in your mouth any more !!!
Better yet I'll post some pictures of a typical local machine shop the next time I'm there.
Rant all you want, but your still wrong. And again, your confuse a MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS with a BUILDING MAINT SHOP.
If your business is a MACHINE SHOP, then yes you would have a more robust hydraulic press, probably several of different configurations.
But not if you are the maint dept for an office building.
They DID NOT work on the Elevators, that work is done by OTIS and OTIS alone.
They do LIGHT maint of the building.
Heavy stuff would be contracted out.
BS. As these last few posts have shown, neither you nor I know for sure what he meant by a 50 ton press. I believe my version is correct. Prove its not.
Arthur
If your business is a MACHINE SHOP, then yes you would have a more robust hydraulic press, probably several of different configurations.
But not if you are the maint dept for an office building.
They DID NOT work on the Elevators, that work is done by OTIS and OTIS alone.
They do LIGHT maint of the building.
Heavy stuff would be contracted out.
QUOTE
As I work around this equipment I automatically understood what Pecararo meant by 50 ton press.
BS. As these last few posts have shown, neither you nor I know for sure what he meant by a 50 ton press. I believe my version is correct. Prove its not.
Arthur
QUOTE
I don't believe that the majority of people working within the US government were 'in on it'. That would be foolish for anyone to think that. It's my belief that most of them are not corrupt, but have been duped by a small number of very powerful and corrupt individuals
Who was duped?
Were the scientists at NIST in on it?
How about those at FEMA?
How many people would have to be in on it to plant explosives in sufficient quantities in the three World Trade Center buildings, not to mention the wiring of them together so they could go off in the proper sequence?
How many people would have to be in on it to supress evidence of said bombs?
What about the actual hijackings? Were "they" in on that too?
Were members of NORAD in on it?
Were members of the FAA in on it?
Were the firefighters at WTC 7 in on it?
Was Silverstein in on it?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 18 2005, 05:31 AM)
Who was duped?
Were the scientists at NIST in on it?
How about those at FEMA?
How many people would have to be in on it to plant explosives in sufficient quantities in the three World Trade Center buildings, not to mention the wiring of them together so they could go off in the proper sequence?
How many people would have to be in on it to supress evidence of said bombs?
What about the actual hijackings? Were "they" in on that too?
Were members of NORAD in on it?
Were members of the FAA in on it?
Were the firefighters at WTC 7 in on it?
Was Silverstein in on it?
Arthur
Sad ... The last gasps for air from a drowning man.
Mel
Thanks for your input, great posts!
I especially liked the 'court transcript' post.
Now, if we could only get the head 'perps' to court...
But 'national security' (A.K.A - personal security for the neo-cons) always seems to win 'dismissals' prior to any 'evidence' being submitted...
(SO FAR !!!)
We'll see... It's not over until the fat lady sings.
Thanks for your input, great posts!
I especially liked the 'court transcript' post.
Now, if we could only get the head 'perps' to court...
But 'national security' (A.K.A - personal security for the neo-cons) always seems to win 'dismissals' prior to any 'evidence' being submitted...
(SO FAR !!!)
We'll see... It's not over until the fat lady sings.
Foxx,
I can always count on you for a non-answer answer.
Arthur
I can always count on you for a non-answer answer.
Arthur
A small but significant piece of information is being overlooked. The more massive the actual press is the less important it is to bolt it down. Conversely, small presses MUST be bolted down securely to (attempt to) compensate for their inherent instability. Size of the press is a function of (x)force applied to (y)area. As y increases so does the structural mass of the press. A press must distribute the force evenly to be of any value. Larger areas demand beefed up super structures to ensure consistent surface pressure. My point is, either way, the press wasn't going anywhere without some serious persuasion.
Found this, sounds like a description of serious persuasion, but actually a hydraulic press provides all the bracing internally, while they can be bolted to the floor, they generally are not, as NO force is applied to the floor and there is no bending/twisting/rocking motion when using one.
From: http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
Arthur
QUOTE
Mike and Arti stayed in the stairwell at the first floor of the tower directing people through the doors. People flooded the stairwell and a great amount of water was also streaming steadily down the stairs. Describing the people coming down Mike said: "Some were burnt, some cut, some screaming, some fine; like there was nothing going on".
"Literally thousands of people came by us down those stairs," Mike said. At one point, an engineer had to run down the stairs to bring some tenants who had inadvertently passed the first floor, back up to the lobby level.
The smoke in the stairwell was constant and at one point, Mike told Arti that he was going to catch a quick breath of fresh air. He walked out into the main lobby of the building, seeing it for the first time.
"When I walked out into the lobby, it was incredible," he recalled. "The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls. 20-foot section of marble, 20 by 10 foot sections of marble, gone from the walls". The west windows were all gone. They were missing. These are tremendous windows. They were just gone. Broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone. Every sprinkler head was going off. I am thinking to myself, how are these sprinkler heads going off? It takes a lot of heat to set off a sprinkler head. It never dawned on me that there was a giant fireball that came through the air of the lobby. I never knew that until later on. The jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby."
"Literally thousands of people came by us down those stairs," Mike said. At one point, an engineer had to run down the stairs to bring some tenants who had inadvertently passed the first floor, back up to the lobby level.
The smoke in the stairwell was constant and at one point, Mike told Arti that he was going to catch a quick breath of fresh air. He walked out into the main lobby of the building, seeing it for the first time.
"When I walked out into the lobby, it was incredible," he recalled. "The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls. 20-foot section of marble, 20 by 10 foot sections of marble, gone from the walls". The west windows were all gone. They were missing. These are tremendous windows. They were just gone. Broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone. Every sprinkler head was going off. I am thinking to myself, how are these sprinkler heads going off? It takes a lot of heat to set off a sprinkler head. It never dawned on me that there was a giant fireball that came through the air of the lobby. I never knew that until later on. The jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby."
From: http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
Arthur
QUOTE
I'm thinking of starting up my own CD company, and with these extraordinarily inexpensive techniques, I'll soon have a nice monopoly as all those other, over-priced joints go out of business. FEMA and NIST would certainly back up my business proposition (they already have with their multi-million dollar reports...break some trusses and columns, light a fire, and global, disproportionate collapse is guaranteed).
Anyone want to get in on this venture with me?
Anyone want to get in on this venture with me?
I think I'll pass, but if you go for it, I can suggest another technique, perhaps even easier: remove the "fire protection" from the steel frame, disable the sprinkler system, light a few propane torches next to them, and then run like the Devil!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm thinking of starting up my own CD company, and with these extraordinarily inexpensive techniques, I'll soon have a nice monopoly as all those other, over-priced joints go out of business. FEMA and NIST would certainly back up my business proposition (they already have with their multi-million dollar reports...break some trusses and columns, light a fire, and global, disproportionate collapse is guaranteed). Anyone want to get in on this venture with me? |
I think I'll pass, but if you go for it, I can suggest another technique, perhaps even easier: remove the "fire protection" from the steel frame, disable the sprinkler system, light a few propane torches next to them, and then run like the Devil!
Metamars; you have often stated in here that we should be printing off physics papers and asking local structural engineers to look at them. I suggest we also start pressuring controlled demolition companies to give us a full, open account of their views of 9/11, and ask them why they go thru all the trouble they do when there are now 3 documented examples of how easy the task really is?
That would be of some interest, but the real issue is: is the collapse of WTC 1,2 & 7 possible without demolition? Everybody already knows that explosives will do the trick.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Arthur
Rant all you want, but your still wrong. And again, your confuse a MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS with a BUILDING MAINT SHOP.
If your business is a MACHINE SHOP, then yes you would have a more robust hydraulic press, probably several of different configurations.
But not if you are the maint dept for an office building.
Rant all you want, but your still wrong. And again, your confuse a MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS with a BUILDING MAINT SHOP.
If your business is a MACHINE SHOP, then yes you would have a more robust hydraulic press, probably several of different configurations.
But not if you are the maint dept for an office building.
Pecararo worked as an engineer in one of the MACHINE SHOPS at WTC.
Please define 'MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS'?
Let's not confuse a 'BUILDING MAINTENANCE DEPT' (such as you might find in a 40 story office complex) with a MACHINE SHOP which serviced one of the worlds tallest structures.
The small 'machine shops' I deal with would have no capability of providing the machining services required by such a structure.
I am not involved with a 'MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS' (apart from subcontracting them for our requirements}
The largest structures 'we' deal with are a mere 250' in length ( approximately 1/4 the length / height of the WTC structures).
Although the generators / engines 'we' deal with are probably only 1/10th the size of those in a structure the size of the WTC towers, 'we' certainly WOULD NOT depend upon 'tools & equipment' such as you have proposed to service such 'structures'.
Your postulation is a joke --- truly laughable !!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Arthur Rant all you want, but your still wrong. And again, your confuse a MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS with a BUILDING MAINT SHOP. If your business is a MACHINE SHOP, then yes you would have a more robust hydraulic press, probably several of different configurations. But not if you are the maint dept for an office building. |
Pecararo worked as an engineer in one of the MACHINE SHOPS at WTC.
Please define 'MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS'?
Let's not confuse a 'BUILDING MAINTENANCE DEPT' (such as you might find in a 40 story office complex) with a MACHINE SHOP which serviced one of the worlds tallest structures.
The small 'machine shops' I deal with would have no capability of providing the machining services required by such a structure.
I am not involved with a 'MACHINE SHOP BUSINESS' (apart from subcontracting them for our requirements}
The largest structures 'we' deal with are a mere 250' in length ( approximately 1/4 the length / height of the WTC structures).
Although the generators / engines 'we' deal with are probably only 1/10th the size of those in a structure the size of the WTC towers, 'we' certainly WOULD NOT depend upon 'tools & equipment' such as you have proposed to service such 'structures'.
Your postulation is a joke --- truly laughable !!
They DID NOT work on the Elevators, that work is done by OTIS and OTIS alone.
Not according to my understanding, but I could be wrong on this point?
Do you have a reference which supports your contention?
QUOTE
They do LIGHT maint of the building. Heavy stuff would be contracted out.
'Light Maintenance' is relative to the structure you are working on.
Are you just speculating and postulating?
Please define 'light maintenance' ... (what? they only took care of changing locks on doors?)
What exactly did their job parameters entail ???? Please provide references.
Thanks
QUOTE
Originally posted by Mel
I have another question for the 'pancake theory' people...
I have another question for the 'pancake theory' people...
Can we conclude that the 'pancake theory' people are related to the 'flat earth people' of the middle-ages?
QUOTE
Originally posted by Coastal
Nice try, Foxx. How long did it take you to slap that web page together? Blah, Bla, Bla, Bla, Blah...
Nice try, Foxx. How long did it take you to slap that web page together? Blah, Bla, Bla, Bla, Blah...
Same old 'Attack the Messenger - Forget the Message' tactic you have always used Coastal.
The purpose in transferring the NIST quote to an html web page was simply to 'capture' the relevant sections of the NIST page.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/wtcelevators.html
As adoucette said the particular adobe document would not allow copying (for some strange reason).
I 'copied' to the html page so that it could be posted.
Sorry to disappoint you... no nefarious conspiracies behind the action.
Please give us your 'speculation' as to why this jet fuel (which was allegedly pouring down every available opening in trying to follow gravity down to the basement levels) CHOSE NOT to flow down the available shaft that Baldizzi escaped through, and why it did not flow down the other passenger express elevator (Car # 7 which went through the impact zone right down to the base of the building)?
To assist you with your speculative answer here is how NIST represents the location of the elevators...
Here is the same color-coded for ease of reference...
As can be seen the express elevators which went from the top of the building down to the basement were on one side of the core. Now have a look at the plan view schematic from NIST...
The express elevators on one side of the core are the skylobby express elevators which only ran from the base to the 2nd skylobby at the 78th floor. The alleged 'thermobaric bomb' couldn't have come down those as they didn't reach to the impact zone.
The express elevators on the other side of the core are the ones which ran to the top of the building (right through the impact zone).
If the jet-fuel fireball travelled down the express elevator shafts, Baldizzi would have been burned to death as were many other passengers caught in elevator cars within the impact zone...(Zone 3)... wouldn't she ???
Sorry... this post deleted...
Somehow made a double post of the one above?
Somehow made a double post of the one above?
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 18 2005, 06:29 AM)
Found this, sounds like a description of serious persuasion, but actually a hydraulic press provides all the bracing internally, while they can be bolted to the floor, they generally are not, as NO force is applied to the floor and there is no bending/twisting/rocking motion when using one.
Arthur
Have you ever used a hydraulic press? They have warnings labels becouse of people like you but can not be totally idiot proof. I have never seen a Hydrolic press in a machine shop with a manual (hand ) pump .
Arthur
Have you ever used a hydraulic press? They have warnings labels becouse of people like you but can not be totally idiot proof. I have never seen a Hydrolic press in a machine shop with a manual (hand ) pump .
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 18 2005, 09:40 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 18 2005, 06:29 AM)
Found this, sounds like a description of serious persuasion, but actually a hydraulic press provides all the bracing internally, while they can be bolted to the floor, they generally are not, as NO force is applied to the floor and there is no bending/twisting/rocking motion when using one.
Arthur
Have you ever used a hydraulic press? They have warnings labels becouse of people like you but can not be totally idiot proof. I have never seen a Hydrolic press in a machine shop with a manual (hand ) pump .
heh...
yeah - what he said
This machinery is not totally idiot-proof.
Arthur
Have you ever used a hydraulic press? They have warnings labels becouse of people like you but can not be totally idiot proof. I have never seen a Hydrolic press in a machine shop with a manual (hand ) pump .
heh...
yeah - what he said
This machinery is not totally idiot-proof.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 18 2005, 09:40 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 18 2005, 06:29 AM)
Found this, sounds like a description of serious persuasion, but actually a hydraulic press provides all the bracing internally, while they can be bolted to the floor, they generally are not, as NO force is applied to the floor and there is no bending/twisting/rocking motion when using one.
Arthur
Have you ever used a hydraulic press? They have warnings labels becouse of people like you but can not be totally idiot proof. I have never seen a Hydrolic press in a machine shop with a manual (hand ) pump .
Yes, in fact several, and go ahead, please explain how the press, regardless of the pressure applied, how anything other than gravitational force affects the floor interface?
I don't have a hydraulic press in my home shop (don't need one) but none of my other tools (drill press, band saw, table saw, radial arm saw, router, lathe and planer) are bolted down.
Yes they can have side forces applied based on the material I'm working with, but that's why they make stands to support your work.
Nice tangent.
It doesn't matter the size of the building particularly, these guys weren't making new trusses or perimeter columns. They were doing routine maint of the stuff that breaks. LIGHT STUFF. That's what building maint guys do. Big stuff = project = contractors.
The point is it is not up to me to prove it wasn't a massive press, it's up to you to prove it was a massive device, since I've shown that it could be a 50 ton press and not be.
Arthur
Please give us your 'speculation' as to why this jet fuel (which was allegedly pouring down every available opening in trying to follow gravity down to the basement levels) CHOSE NOT to flow down the available shaft that Baldizzi escaped through, and why it did not flow down the other passenger express elevator (Car # 7 which went through the impact zone right down to the base of the building)?
To assist you with your speculative answer here is how NIST represents the location of the elevators...
As can be seen the express elevators which went from the top of the building down to the basement were on one side of the core. Now have a look at the plan view schematic from NIST...
The express elevators on one side of the core are the skylobby express elevators which only ran from the base to the 2nd skylobby at the 78th floor. The alleged 'thermobaric bomb' couldn't have come down those as they didn't reach to the impact zone.
The express elevators on the other side of the core are the ones which ran to the top of the building (right through the impact zone).
If the jet-fuel fireball travelled down the express elevator shafts, Baldizzi would have been burned to death as were many other passengers caught in elevator cars within the impact zone...(Zone 3)... wouldn't she ???
The SIDE view is a logical description of how they were layed out, it is clearly not a PHYSICAL LAYOUT.
Note that different elevators face different directions, thus one could have jet fuel forced down one set of shafts in much greater quantities than in the other.
Secondly, from Baldizzi's testimony, it would appear that the elevator she took was already above the impact area.
Do you know the orientation of the impact to the layout of the elevators?
I ask this because if the impact was on the side labeled "open office plan" than it would appear that all four express elevators would have been most likely ok after the impact.
Arthur
'Light stuff', heh... yeah, like this...
"Mike’s assignment that day would be to continue constructing a gantry that would be used to pull the heads from the 2,500 ton chillers, located in the 6th sub- basement level of the tower. 49,000 tons of refrigeration equipment were located in the lower level of the tower. The 2,500 ton units were the smallest in use.."
http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
Mike Pecoraro
50 ton Dake press...
LITTLE 6 ton machine shop press...
Home-Depot toy...
Heh... notice the hand pump & hand crank - premium quality stuff (for your home-shop).
Ahhhh yes.... I was wondering when you were going to find that. Thanks for bringing it up. Now, why don't you tell us how those jet-fuel fumes got there?
You've spent untold amounts of energy over numerous pages trying to convince us that the jet-fuel fumes just finished blowing up in this massive fuel-air thermobarbic bomb. How do these fumes blow-up, and yet still exist?
Shades of the amazing multiplying korans, and magic passports...
Let's see. The jet-fuel atomizes in the impact (but it isn't the right mixture to create a fuel-air explosion, so it just burns up in a massive fireball)... Oh no, wait - it doesn't all blow up there.
It spreads out in great pools on the floor, and then burns up as it acts as an accelerant to ignite the office combustables...Oh no,wait - it doesn't all burn up there, some of it sneaks away (unburning) from the 'raging inferno' and falls into one of three shafts (which are side by side ... avoiding the shaft that Mary Baldizzi is in to spare her - very considerate of this jet-fuel).
So as it falls down the shaft, it turns into fumes (just the right size particulates to form the proper mix for a thermobaric bomb). But somehow it waits to get down to the basement levels.
So now that the fumes are just the proper mix, it blows up again in the basement...Oh no, wait - only (say) 90% of the fumes blow up, (because it has to leave evidence that it was there), so it leaves (say) 10% of the fumes unburnt so that after it blows up, it's still there.
If the jet-fuel fumes just exploded in this fantastic thermobarbic bomb which shattered a 50 ton press (or made it disappear); shattered concrete walls in the parking garage (or turned them to rubble); and shattered 3" thick 3-story glass windows in the lobby (or blew them out, according to the descriptions from other sources)...Then HOW are the fumes still there?
Dance, Little Sister, Dance.
(with apologies to the Rolling Stones)
50 ton press...
Home-Depot toy...
Heh... notice the hand pump & hand crank - premium quality stuff (for your home-shop).
Or are you lying? Go ahead, Mel, which is it? Are YOU full of s**t, or is it just that you're HEAD's full of s**t? Your choice.
Arthur
Have you ever used a hydraulic press? They have warnings labels becouse of people like you but can not be totally idiot proof. I have never seen a Hydrolic press in a machine shop with a manual (hand ) pump .
Yes, in fact several, and go ahead, please explain how the press, regardless of the pressure applied, how anything other than gravitational force affects the floor interface?
I don't have a hydraulic press in my home shop (don't need one) but none of my other tools (drill press, band saw, table saw, radial arm saw, router, lathe and planer) are bolted down.
Yes they can have side forces applied based on the material I'm working with, but that's why they make stands to support your work.
Nice tangent.
It doesn't matter the size of the building particularly, these guys weren't making new trusses or perimeter columns. They were doing routine maint of the stuff that breaks. LIGHT STUFF. That's what building maint guys do. Big stuff = project = contractors.
The point is it is not up to me to prove it wasn't a massive press, it's up to you to prove it was a massive device, since I've shown that it could be a 50 ton press and not be.
Arthur
This picture supports the contention that the core WAS, in fact, mostly hollow.
Elevator shafts are in fact HOLLOW.
Even if the car is in them they have plenty of clearance on both sides for cable runs, electric supply and guide rails.
Arthur
Elevator shafts are in fact HOLLOW.
Even if the car is in them they have plenty of clearance on both sides for cable runs, electric supply and guide rails.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 18 2005, 09:18 AM)
Please give us your 'speculation' as to why this jet fuel (which was allegedly pouring down every available opening in trying to follow gravity down to the basement levels) CHOSE NOT to flow down the available shaft that Baldizzi escaped through, and why it did not flow down the other passenger express elevator (Car # 7 which went through the impact zone right down to the base of the building)?
To assist you with your speculative answer here is how NIST represents the location of the elevators...
As can be seen the express elevators which went from the top of the building down to the basement were on one side of the core. Now have a look at the plan view schematic from NIST...
The express elevators on one side of the core are the skylobby express elevators which only ran from the base to the 2nd skylobby at the 78th floor. The alleged 'thermobaric bomb' couldn't have come down those as they didn't reach to the impact zone.
The express elevators on the other side of the core are the ones which ran to the top of the building (right through the impact zone).
If the jet-fuel fireball travelled down the express elevator shafts, Baldizzi would have been burned to death as were many other passengers caught in elevator cars within the impact zone...(Zone 3)... wouldn't she ???
The SIDE view is a logical description of how they were layed out, it is clearly not a PHYSICAL LAYOUT.
Note that different elevators face different directions, thus one could have jet fuel forced down one set of shafts in much greater quantities than in the other.
Secondly, from Baldizzi's testimony, it would appear that the elevator she took was already above the impact area.
Do you know the orientation of the impact to the layout of the elevators?
I ask this because if the impact was on the side labeled "open office plan" than it would appear that all four express elevators would have been most likely ok after the impact.
Arthur
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
It doesn't matter the size of the building particularly, these guys weren't making new trusses or perimeter columns. They were doing routine maint of the stuff that breaks. LIGHT STUFF. That's what building maint guys do. Big stuff = project = contractors.
It doesn't matter the size of the building particularly, these guys weren't making new trusses or perimeter columns. They were doing routine maint of the stuff that breaks. LIGHT STUFF. That's what building maint guys do. Big stuff = project = contractors.
'Light stuff', heh... yeah, like this...
"Mike’s assignment that day would be to continue constructing a gantry that would be used to pull the heads from the 2,500 ton chillers, located in the 6th sub- basement level of the tower. 49,000 tons of refrigeration equipment were located in the lower level of the tower. The 2,500 ton units were the smallest in use.."
http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
Mike Pecoraro
50 ton Dake press...
LITTLE 6 ton machine shop press...
Home-Depot toy...
Heh... notice the hand pump & hand crank - premium quality stuff (for your home-shop).
Once again, 2500 Ton chillers doesn't mean they weigh 2500 tons.
Note the description, A SMALL MACHINE SHOP. But now you have a monster hydraulic press in it. FACE IT, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW BIG IT WAS. As these posts have shown the term "50 Ton" is totally misleading, size is NOT related to the pressure it can apply. As far as calling the one I first posted a toy, its shipping weight is over 400 lbs, so NO it is not a toy, notice the size of those I beams. What it doesn't have is a motor driven hydraulic pump or a motor driven height adjustment. But if you are only using it occassionally, as in a maint shop, those conveniences are not that mandatory. Had they been there they don't make the machine much larger.
But from your post there is even MORE interesting info:
From the article:
Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. “Did you see that?” he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. “You didn’t see the lights flicker?”, his co-worker asked again. “No,” Mike responded, but he knew immediately that if the lights had flickered, it could spell trouble. A power surge or interruption could play havoc with the building’s equipment. If all the pumps trip out or pulse meters trip, it could make for a very long day bringing the entire center’s equipment back on-line.
==> OK, so these guys were apparently in the lowest level of the building and OBVIOUSLY NO EXPLOSION WENT OFF THERE. All they saw was that the lights flickered.
Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and “sit tight” until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. “We smelled kerosene,” Mike recalled, “I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs”, referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.
==> So now they smell kerosene (Aka JET FUEL) in the basement. Wonder how that got there?
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
==> So now we know that the fuel explosion happened as far down as the C level and that the machine shop was SMALL.
“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer.
==> So they say that the press is "gone" but then they also say WE COULDN'T SEE THROUGH THE SMOKE. So gone really didn't have to be very far, hell it could have just been tipped over.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said.
==> So the WRITER said "the parking garage was gone", but the WITNESSES simply say that the walls were knocked down and there was rubble on the floor, of course they also add YOU COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING. Which again brings to mind how extensive was the damage, since you really couldn't see much.
They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building.
==> But it wasn't a bomb, that's why they smelled Kerosene and they DIDN'T hear the signature sharp reports of any high explosives that could cut steel. They didn't hear them because the damage was from a much slower moving fuel explosion.
Arthur
Note the description, A SMALL MACHINE SHOP. But now you have a monster hydraulic press in it. FACE IT, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW BIG IT WAS. As these posts have shown the term "50 Ton" is totally misleading, size is NOT related to the pressure it can apply. As far as calling the one I first posted a toy, its shipping weight is over 400 lbs, so NO it is not a toy, notice the size of those I beams. What it doesn't have is a motor driven hydraulic pump or a motor driven height adjustment. But if you are only using it occassionally, as in a maint shop, those conveniences are not that mandatory. Had they been there they don't make the machine much larger.
But from your post there is even MORE interesting info:
From the article:
Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. “Did you see that?” he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. “You didn’t see the lights flicker?”, his co-worker asked again. “No,” Mike responded, but he knew immediately that if the lights had flickered, it could spell trouble. A power surge or interruption could play havoc with the building’s equipment. If all the pumps trip out or pulse meters trip, it could make for a very long day bringing the entire center’s equipment back on-line.
==> OK, so these guys were apparently in the lowest level of the building and OBVIOUSLY NO EXPLOSION WENT OFF THERE. All they saw was that the lights flickered.
Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and “sit tight” until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. “We smelled kerosene,” Mike recalled, “I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs”, referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.
==> So now they smell kerosene (Aka JET FUEL) in the basement. Wonder how that got there?
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
==> So now we know that the fuel explosion happened as far down as the C level and that the machine shop was SMALL.
“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer.
==> So they say that the press is "gone" but then they also say WE COULDN'T SEE THROUGH THE SMOKE. So gone really didn't have to be very far, hell it could have just been tipped over.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said.
==> So the WRITER said "the parking garage was gone", but the WITNESSES simply say that the walls were knocked down and there was rubble on the floor, of course they also add YOU COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING. Which again brings to mind how extensive was the damage, since you really couldn't see much.
They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building.
==> But it wasn't a bomb, that's why they smelled Kerosene and they DIDN'T hear the signature sharp reports of any high explosives that could cut steel. They didn't hear them because the damage was from a much slower moving fuel explosion.
Arthur
Good to see that EVERYONE is now well and truly aware of Faux' lies. Shall we count them again?
50 ton hydraulic press, anyone?
How about the missing elevator shafts?
See page 50. There's another 50 of them there.
50 ton hydraulic press, anyone?
How about the missing elevator shafts?
See page 50. There's another 50 of them there.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 18 2005, 06:39 PM)
Good to see that EVERYONE is now well and truly aware of Faux' lies. Shall we count them again?
EVERYONE? I haven't read a single instance of him lying. Perhaps you need to look up the word 'lie' in a dictionary...I'm pretty certain you don't know what it means.
And as for lies, I challenge anyone in here to find one that tops this beauty. Gee, I wonder who told this one?
And while we're here, Schneibster, could you perhaps clarify for me the 'explanation' you provided for me regarding the 'pile-driving' effect of the collapsing section of the towers. I believe you tried to convince people that their was some sort of 'impulse' force associated with the collapsing section impacting the intact section. I just need to be sure about what you meant, so that when time permits, I can turn that nonsense 'on its end'.
And just to reiterate, using the immortal words of Arthur: "credibility, once lost, is difficult or impossible to regain."
EVERYONE? I haven't read a single instance of him lying. Perhaps you need to look up the word 'lie' in a dictionary...I'm pretty certain you don't know what it means.
And as for lies, I challenge anyone in here to find one that tops this beauty. Gee, I wonder who told this one?
And while we're here, Schneibster, could you perhaps clarify for me the 'explanation' you provided for me regarding the 'pile-driving' effect of the collapsing section of the towers. I believe you tried to convince people that their was some sort of 'impulse' force associated with the collapsing section impacting the intact section. I just need to be sure about what you meant, so that when time permits, I can turn that nonsense 'on its end'.
And just to reiterate, using the immortal words of Arthur: "credibility, once lost, is difficult or impossible to regain."
Poor, poor Mel.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Arthur
==>So now they smell kerosene (Aka JET FUEL) in the basement. Wonder how that got there?
==>So now they smell kerosene (Aka JET FUEL) in the basement. Wonder how that got there?
Ahhhh yes.... I was wondering when you were going to find that. Thanks for bringing it up. Now, why don't you tell us how those jet-fuel fumes got there?
You've spent untold amounts of energy over numerous pages trying to convince us that the jet-fuel fumes just finished blowing up in this massive fuel-air thermobarbic bomb. How do these fumes blow-up, and yet still exist?
Shades of the amazing multiplying korans, and magic passports...
Let's see. The jet-fuel atomizes in the impact (but it isn't the right mixture to create a fuel-air explosion, so it just burns up in a massive fireball)... Oh no, wait - it doesn't all blow up there.
It spreads out in great pools on the floor, and then burns up as it acts as an accelerant to ignite the office combustables...Oh no,wait - it doesn't all burn up there, some of it sneaks away (unburning) from the 'raging inferno' and falls into one of three shafts (which are side by side ... avoiding the shaft that Mary Baldizzi is in to spare her - very considerate of this jet-fuel).
So as it falls down the shaft, it turns into fumes (just the right size particulates to form the proper mix for a thermobaric bomb). But somehow it waits to get down to the basement levels.
So now that the fumes are just the proper mix, it blows up again in the basement...Oh no, wait - only (say) 90% of the fumes blow up, (because it has to leave evidence that it was there), so it leaves (say) 10% of the fumes unburnt so that after it blows up, it's still there.
If the jet-fuel fumes just exploded in this fantastic thermobarbic bomb which shattered a 50 ton press (or made it disappear); shattered concrete walls in the parking garage (or turned them to rubble); and shattered 3" thick 3-story glass windows in the lobby (or blew them out, according to the descriptions from other sources)...Then HOW are the fumes still there?
Dance, Little Sister, Dance.
(with apologies to the Rolling Stones)
50 ton press...
Home-Depot toy...
Heh... notice the hand pump & hand crank - premium quality stuff (for your home-shop).
QUOTE (Foxx+)
Ahhhh yes.... I was wondering when you were going to find that. Thanks for bringing it up. Now, why don't you tell us how those jet-fuel fumes got there?
Easy, not ALL the kerosene would have burned, and then residual burning kerosene liquid, smells like, well Kerosene.
You think I have to dance, this does away with the idea there were high explosives set off in the basement.
Arthur
Easy, not ALL the kerosene would have burned, and then residual burning kerosene liquid, smells like, well Kerosene.
You think I have to dance, this does away with the idea there were high explosives set off in the basement.
Arthur
QUOTE
EVERYONE? I haven't read a single instance of him lying. Perhaps you need to look up the word 'lie' in a dictionary...I'm pretty certain you don't know what it means.
Well, the average IQ IS 100- I suppose SOMEONE has to help keep it down. Or are you lying? Go ahead, Mel, which is it? Are YOU full of s**t, or is it just that you're HEAD's full of s**t? Your choice.
Academia is speaking out. Where they go many will follow.
Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11 Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered
James H.Fetzer, PhD., has publicly thrown his hat in the ring to support other professors seriously questioning and casting doubt on the official 9/11 story.
--In concluding his academic look at 9/11, Fetzer boldly asks Americans to Endeavour to seek the truth in every possible way, suggesting the “government-dominated” mass media has presented one of the biggest obstacles.
“Which raises the question, who had the power to make these things happen and to cover it up,” asks Fetzer. “Once the evidence has been sorted out and appropriately appraised, the answer is no longer very difficult to find." --
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/39247.htm
Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11 Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered
James H.Fetzer, PhD., has publicly thrown his hat in the ring to support other professors seriously questioning and casting doubt on the official 9/11 story.
--In concluding his academic look at 9/11, Fetzer boldly asks Americans to Endeavour to seek the truth in every possible way, suggesting the “government-dominated” mass media has presented one of the biggest obstacles.
“Which raises the question, who had the power to make these things happen and to cover it up,” asks Fetzer. “Once the evidence has been sorted out and appropriately appraised, the answer is no longer very difficult to find." --
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/39247.htm
Link to Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor James H.Fetzer, PhD.,
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 18 2005, 11:50 PM)
Link to Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor James H.Fetzer, PhD.,
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
We still have an opportunity for a currently licensed structural engineer to join our al Qaeda defense team.
Please send your application to: Steven E. Jones, c/o hot, warm and cold fusion dept., BYU, Utah.
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
We still have an opportunity for a currently licensed structural engineer to join our al Qaeda defense team.
Please send your application to: Steven E. Jones, c/o hot, warm and cold fusion dept., BYU, Utah.
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.