I didn't mean to post that last one just yet but its nearly time to get up here so I am going to my bed -- see you later folks
G
Just 'surfing through' and these two misconceptions caught my attention....
Lets take an empty Pepsi can, put it on the ground. Then take another empty Pepsi can, hold it a couple of feet above the empty one and drop it straight down so that it hits the empty Pepsi can.
GUESS WHAT??? OH MY GOD!!! The empty can on the ground RESISTED THE FALL.
OK, not satisfied. Take a full Pepsi can and drop it on the empty one and see what happens. Even though the full can weighs many times more than the empty one it still didn't completely demolish the empty can. Yeah it bent it up, but guess what?
It RESISTED THE FALL.
.
Sorry, steve; but I think you'll find that in the experiment you describe, it is THE GOUND which resists the falling can...because if the ground was not there, the empty can would be 'collected' by the falling can, and BOTH would continue with little pause to follow the accelerative dictates of GRAVITY which is constantly acting on BOTH cans. Hope this clears things up for you, mate. Ciao.
Gordon,
Thanks very much for the extra detail.
Not today, but tomorrow when you're bright-eyed and bushy tailed, please elaborate some more.
This equation is obviously very simple, but I'm pretty sure is not in my physics books. It kind of looks like a simple eqn. I had seen on the internet, but failed to bookmark, and have since not been able to find, again.
Could you please reference your post (i.e., at least this equation), when you have time? It looks like a chapter 1 engineering statics equation. However, I took statics and dynamics from the physics department, and don't remember any such equation.
============================
Also, (and this is not so important), if you are trained as an engineer, would you please speak to why engineers took Bazant-Zhou seriously? Or, perhaps they didn't, only non-engineers took it seriously?
An analogy in physics might be a "famous" (I think) result that showed how you could get a wormhole if you had a certain type of gravitational collapse, with perfect symmetry that would be destroyed by a single spec of dust.
I really don't recall if the destruction of the wormhole due to asymetric mass distribution was determined at the time of publication, or later, but I would think such a paper is worth publishing even if it's known at the time of first publication that the conditions would never be achieved. It's an interesting theoretical result, but no physicist would, of course, spend any time looking for such a wormhole.
So, I'm less puzzled as to why Bazant-Zhou would publish their "analysis", than as to why anybody technical took it seriously. Certainly, all civil engineers know that metal will deform plastically, and this process requires energy....
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 28 2005, 05:57 AM)
Lets take an empty Pepsi can, put it on the ground. Then take another empty Pepsi can, hold it a couple of feet above the empty one and drop it straight down so that it hits the empty Pepsi can.
GUESS WHAT??? OH MY GOD!!! The empty can on the ground RESISTED THE FALL.
OK, not satisfied. Take a full Pepsi can and drop it on the empty one and see what happens. Even though the full can weighs many times more than the empty one it still didn't completely demolish the empty can. Yeah it bent it up, but guess what?
It RESISTED THE FALL.
.
Sorry, steve; but I think you'll find that in the experiment you describe, it is THE GOUND which resists the falling can...because if the ground was not there, the empty can would be 'collected' by the falling can, and BOTH would continue with little pause to follow the accelerative dictates of GRAVITY which is constantly acting on BOTH cans. Hope this clears things up for you, mate. Ciao.
QUOTE (gordon+Dec 28 2005, 06:07 AM)
and that does not even consider the inertia of the building which must be overcome in order to move a huge proportion of the building downwards.
Now that would be an interesting momentum equivalence equation.
G
.
Sorry, gordon; but since GRAVITY acceleration is ALWAYS acting on every part of a building, it is technically 'FALLING' ALL THE TIME...hence the 'weight' force that all parts of a building are continually imparting on all Lower parts of that building, even though they are NOT 'moving' as such. In other words, since these parts are always falling, the USUAL INERTIA aspect is erroneous when talking of a building 'STARTING' to move from a 'standing start'...because there IS no 'standing start', but always a 'falling start' temporarily obstructed by the integrity of the building structure supporting it against CONSTANT gravitational ACCELERATION. I think what you are confusing here is HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT FROM A STANDING START FROM A TRULY NON-ACCELERATED STATIONARY POSITION...which isn't the case with DOWNWARD VERTICAL MOVEMENT under conditions of gravity scenarios. Hope this helps. Gotta run, busy elsewhere. Good luck.
RealityCheck.
.
Now that would be an interesting momentum equivalence equation.
G
.
Sorry, gordon; but since GRAVITY acceleration is ALWAYS acting on every part of a building, it is technically 'FALLING' ALL THE TIME...hence the 'weight' force that all parts of a building are continually imparting on all Lower parts of that building, even though they are NOT 'moving' as such. In other words, since these parts are always falling, the USUAL INERTIA aspect is erroneous when talking of a building 'STARTING' to move from a 'standing start'...because there IS no 'standing start', but always a 'falling start' temporarily obstructed by the integrity of the building structure supporting it against CONSTANT gravitational ACCELERATION. I think what you are confusing here is HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT FROM A STANDING START FROM A TRULY NON-ACCELERATED STATIONARY POSITION...which isn't the case with DOWNWARD VERTICAL MOVEMENT under conditions of gravity scenarios. Hope this helps. Gotta run, busy elsewhere. Good luck.
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
Strain energy = (100mg/2* 5.5mm*37) + (100mg x plastic deflection)
Gordon,
Thanks very much for the extra detail.
Not today, but tomorrow when you're bright-eyed and bushy tailed, please elaborate some more.
This equation is obviously very simple, but I'm pretty sure is not in my physics books. It kind of looks like a simple eqn. I had seen on the internet, but failed to bookmark, and have since not been able to find, again.
Could you please reference your post (i.e., at least this equation), when you have time? It looks like a chapter 1 engineering statics equation. However, I took statics and dynamics from the physics department, and don't remember any such equation.
============================
Also, (and this is not so important), if you are trained as an engineer, would you please speak to why engineers took Bazant-Zhou seriously? Or, perhaps they didn't, only non-engineers took it seriously?
An analogy in physics might be a "famous" (I think) result that showed how you could get a wormhole if you had a certain type of gravitational collapse, with perfect symmetry that would be destroyed by a single spec of dust.
I really don't recall if the destruction of the wormhole due to asymetric mass distribution was determined at the time of publication, or later, but I would think such a paper is worth publishing even if it's known at the time of first publication that the conditions would never be achieved. It's an interesting theoretical result, but no physicist would, of course, spend any time looking for such a wormhole.
So, I'm less puzzled as to why Bazant-Zhou would publish their "analysis", than as to why anybody technical took it seriously. Certainly, all civil engineers know that metal will deform plastically, and this process requires energy....
RealityCheck,
Oh yeah! I forgot, according to your theory the world trade centers weren't sit on the ground, but were just hanging in space hmmmmmmmm
There's so many fantasy stories going on in here that I sometimes forget which one is the most popular.
But lets get real here, and lets have a real Reality check.
The floors below disintegrated before and simultaneously, as the top floors crashed in them. The bottom floors could not have weakened according to your pancake theory, because as you say the stress of the top floors crashing in on the lower floors overloaded the steel frame structure, including the inner cores on each floor thereby causing them to collapse.
And this stress overload "pancake" would have to crash in on each subsequent lower floor until it hit the ground.
Now the resistance factor means that some of the energy would have been used to weaken the steel frame structure of each floor, which would have delayed the rate of decent.
Try to think logically for a minute and not emotionally, and realize that thick steel framing such as in the WTC buildings were made to withstand A LOT OF PRESSURE.
Do you honestly think all 110 floors, or even the 80 or so bottom floors would all disintegrate into fine powder simultaneously???
I'm probably wasting my time trying to talk logically with illogical people, but I guess I'm an optimist with hope that somewhere in that dense head of yours there just might be a little sign of intelligence, but chances are you'll prove me wrong on that one.
One last thing before I go. STEEL IS STRONG, and NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRES. But then again those are just facts, logic and truth and we already know the truth doesn't mix well with fantasies so I guess you'll have to throw that out the window.
Oh yeah! I forgot, according to your theory the world trade centers weren't sit on the ground, but were just hanging in space hmmmmmmmm
There's so many fantasy stories going on in here that I sometimes forget which one is the most popular.
But lets get real here, and lets have a real Reality check.
The floors below disintegrated before and simultaneously, as the top floors crashed in them. The bottom floors could not have weakened according to your pancake theory, because as you say the stress of the top floors crashing in on the lower floors overloaded the steel frame structure, including the inner cores on each floor thereby causing them to collapse.
And this stress overload "pancake" would have to crash in on each subsequent lower floor until it hit the ground.
Now the resistance factor means that some of the energy would have been used to weaken the steel frame structure of each floor, which would have delayed the rate of decent.
Try to think logically for a minute and not emotionally, and realize that thick steel framing such as in the WTC buildings were made to withstand A LOT OF PRESSURE.
Do you honestly think all 110 floors, or even the 80 or so bottom floors would all disintegrate into fine powder simultaneously???
I'm probably wasting my time trying to talk logically with illogical people, but I guess I'm an optimist with hope that somewhere in that dense head of yours there just might be a little sign of intelligence, but chances are you'll prove me wrong on that one.
One last thing before I go. STEEL IS STRONG, and NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRES. But then again those are just facts, logic and truth and we already know the truth doesn't mix well with fantasies so I guess you'll have to throw that out the window.
RealityCheck,
Just one more thing my poor uneducated friend.
Do you understand what a half truth means?? Let me explain it to you.
A statement like "The building is always falling" is a half truth.
Yeah the gravity is always in effect, but what you so conveniently left out was the RESISTANCE FACTOR.
You see my boy, the reason the WTC didn't actually fall to the ground is because there was MASS UNDERNEATH IT, which RESISTED and prevented them from actually falling.
So your statement of the building always falling is not true, in fact it's quite ignorant to tell you the truth, but what can you expect.
If you wanted to be a little honest in your post you might have said the building always has a POTENTIAL TO FALL, but because of the underlying mass it obviously didn't fall, at least not until that underlying mass was removed by explosives.
Looks like a little bit of knowledge in a little tiny brain can be dangerous. Next time try to think things through a little further, you might be able to say something useful.
Just one more thing my poor uneducated friend.
Do you understand what a half truth means?? Let me explain it to you.
A statement like "The building is always falling" is a half truth.
Yeah the gravity is always in effect, but what you so conveniently left out was the RESISTANCE FACTOR.
You see my boy, the reason the WTC didn't actually fall to the ground is because there was MASS UNDERNEATH IT, which RESISTED and prevented them from actually falling.
So your statement of the building always falling is not true, in fact it's quite ignorant to tell you the truth, but what can you expect.
If you wanted to be a little honest in your post you might have said the building always has a POTENTIAL TO FALL, but because of the underlying mass it obviously didn't fall, at least not until that underlying mass was removed by explosives.
Looks like a little bit of knowledge in a little tiny brain can be dangerous. Next time try to think things through a little further, you might be able to say something useful.
.
steve 1957.
Are you on some sort of medication?...or is it just that you're an 11yr-old pretending to debate with the grown-ups?
Either way, you certainly sound like you could do with ANY knowledge at all...anything so as to stop you sounding so silly and immature. If you can't understand what is being explained to you, don't blame me, mate. Look to your own ignorance...that's the first step to the getting of wisdom....something of which you are certainly in dire need, as well as manners of course. If you can't be-intelligent, then be-have. Ciao.
RealityCheck.
.
steve 1957.
Are you on some sort of medication?...or is it just that you're an 11yr-old pretending to debate with the grown-ups?
Either way, you certainly sound like you could do with ANY knowledge at all...anything so as to stop you sounding so silly and immature. If you can't understand what is being explained to you, don't blame me, mate. Look to your own ignorance...that's the first step to the getting of wisdom....something of which you are certainly in dire need, as well as manners of course. If you can't be-intelligent, then be-have. Ciao.
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 28 2005, 02:45 AM)
Ahhhh, yes... The Schniebster reappears as....
'Common Sense' !!!
I suspect it won't take long for 'Common Sense' to start referring to me as a 'Liar'
Excellent call on this one, Foxx. I knew he'd be back, it was just a question of when. I got the distinct feeling that things were getting a little too warm for Schneibster in here (and the GNN), so he opted out for a little while, only to reappear as 'Common Sense'.
True or not, I will now be reading ALL of Common Sense's postings as though they were Schneibster (the writing style sure fits nicely). Thanks.
'Common Sense' !!!
I suspect it won't take long for 'Common Sense' to start referring to me as a 'Liar'
Excellent call on this one, Foxx. I knew he'd be back, it was just a question of when. I got the distinct feeling that things were getting a little too warm for Schneibster in here (and the GNN), so he opted out for a little while, only to reappear as 'Common Sense'.
True or not, I will now be reading ALL of Common Sense's postings as though they were Schneibster (the writing style sure fits nicely). Thanks.
Paul henderson
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Henderson
told me a couple of weeks afterwards that it was simplly to
restructure the globlal economy. (somewhat like the 2nd world war).
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Henderson
told me a couple of weeks afterwards that it was simplly to
restructure the globlal economy. (somewhat like the 2nd world war).
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 28 2005, 04:13 AM)
QUOTE (Steve1957+)
the resistant factor would delay the fall by at least one second per floor
Since this is your "formula", which is apparently your "Proof", could you explain what exactly is the definition of a "resistant factor" and what is the formula you use to calculate it?
Once we know that, we can see if it works out to 1 second per floor.
Arthur
PS: Anyone want to bet a zillion bucks that no FORMULA is forthcoming?
So of course this was the reply from Steve
I KNEW my Zillion bucks was safe.
NO WAY was an ACTUAL formula going to come from Steve.
As usual, just MORE HAND WAVING.
Arthur
Paul henderson
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Henderson
told me a couple of weeks afterwards that it was simplly to
restructure the globlal economy. (somewhat like the 2nd world war).
Kinda curious about the WW2 reference. Do you have any more info on that? Britain was greatly at risk of losing her Empire as a result of WW2, so I find this kind of doubtful.
The US's finagling to get into WW2 was purely geostrategic, AFAIK, and FDR was basically anti-colonialism. As for Britain, I once read an article, which I unfortunately can't find, that indicated that British elites were the main culprits in building up Nazi Germany, including it's "miraculous" economic recovery from WW1 and Versailles. Not for love of Nazism, but because they wanted a counterweight to the USSR, and, in fact, finagled to get them into a war.
According to this article, Stalin was pleading with the West for a united front against more land grabs by Hitler, and only after it became clear that the West was being deceitful, did he sign the non-aggression Pact.
I have no idea about this article's scholarship.
As for 911, I think Mr. Henderson is on target. In fact, if Iran successfully establishes an oil bourse based on the euro, the US economy may well collapse, even if, by some miracle, we can still steal Iraq's oil and sell IT in dollars. The US dollar being the reserve currency of central banks all over the world is not simply the result of military power, but moreso the result of "petrodollar recycling".
Then again, I'm no economist, so don't quote me.
If the above is true, the close relationship between Israel and the US may guarantee that the US takes a fall. This scenario depends on Russia supplying Iran with, say, 15 nukes and the missiles to deliver them. If this were known to be the case, Israel may squelch any US attempt at an attack on Iran, and thus fail to prevent the establishment of said bourse. My guess is that Putin is no dummy, and this has already been done.
I'm no geostrategist, either, so don't quote me here, either.
Frankly, the "uni-polar" moment is bad for humanity, and is also proving catastrophic for the US. I'll be glad when it's over.
Since this is your "formula", which is apparently your "Proof", could you explain what exactly is the definition of a "resistant factor" and what is the formula you use to calculate it?
Once we know that, we can see if it works out to 1 second per floor.
Arthur
PS: Anyone want to bet a zillion bucks that no FORMULA is forthcoming?
So of course this was the reply from Steve
QUOTE
Regarding the resistance formula. Let me make this real easy for you.
If you drop something from 1350 feet up and there is nothing in the way it will fall at free fall speed. Understand. Nothing but air is in the way, virtually no obstruction.
Now let's just say there is something in the path of the object that you dropped and object hits that obstruction on the way down. That obstruction will delay the object from hitting the ground, how much or how little depends upon how much mass is contained in the obstruction.
Are you able to grasp this yet, or is this just too complicated?
Free fall means no obstruction, hence free fall speed, (fast) and we'll call it delayed fall because something got in the way, therefore it slowed the rate of decent down.
Now if your able to comprehend the fact that there is a difference between free fall speed and obstructed falls lets move on the the towers.
Is the term resistance too hard to comprehend? OK put on your little thinking cap and try to pay attention.
Lets take an empty Pepsi can, put it on the ground. Then take another empty Pepsi can, hold it a couple of feet above the empty one and drop it straight down so that it hits the empty Pepsi can.
GUESS WHAT??? OH MY GOD!!! The empty can on the ground RESISTED THE FALL.
If you drop something from 1350 feet up and there is nothing in the way it will fall at free fall speed. Understand. Nothing but air is in the way, virtually no obstruction.
Now let's just say there is something in the path of the object that you dropped and object hits that obstruction on the way down. That obstruction will delay the object from hitting the ground, how much or how little depends upon how much mass is contained in the obstruction.
Are you able to grasp this yet, or is this just too complicated?
Free fall means no obstruction, hence free fall speed, (fast) and we'll call it delayed fall because something got in the way, therefore it slowed the rate of decent down.
Now if your able to comprehend the fact that there is a difference between free fall speed and obstructed falls lets move on the the towers.
Is the term resistance too hard to comprehend? OK put on your little thinking cap and try to pay attention.
Lets take an empty Pepsi can, put it on the ground. Then take another empty Pepsi can, hold it a couple of feet above the empty one and drop it straight down so that it hits the empty Pepsi can.
GUESS WHAT??? OH MY GOD!!! The empty can on the ground RESISTED THE FALL.
I KNEW my Zillion bucks was safe.
NO WAY was an ACTUAL formula going to come from Steve.
As usual, just MORE HAND WAVING.
Arthur
adoucette
2Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Scripture is being fulfilled right in front of our very eyes. Because as you know the lie (or at least one of them) is the magician in the cave suspended the laws of physics and reality to cause the WTC buildings to do something that has never, ever happened before, IE; steel frame structures collapsing within an hour and a half after a fire hits on one of it's floors.
Intelligent people who believe in God understand that He created the laws of physics and gravity and those laws don't change. Only God has the power to perform miracles, not Bin Laden and not Bush, so you can rest assured that the laws of reality did not change, even on 9/11, hence the laws of cause and effect were still very much in effect that day.
Hence, because SOMETHING has to cause an effect, the towers imploded due to explosives being planted. Steel frame towers don't just collapse for no reason, something has to cause it to happen, at least in reality.
Hence, no stress had hit the lower floors before the collapse, yet the lower floors still exploded into FINE DUST, even before the top sections had fallen on them.
Hence, there's a lot of strong delusion all over the place concerning the magician in the cave, IE; Bin Laden and all too many people believe that lie,
Hence, the scripture is fulfilled.
2Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Scripture is being fulfilled right in front of our very eyes. Because as you know the lie (or at least one of them) is the magician in the cave suspended the laws of physics and reality to cause the WTC buildings to do something that has never, ever happened before, IE; steel frame structures collapsing within an hour and a half after a fire hits on one of it's floors.
Intelligent people who believe in God understand that He created the laws of physics and gravity and those laws don't change. Only God has the power to perform miracles, not Bin Laden and not Bush, so you can rest assured that the laws of reality did not change, even on 9/11, hence the laws of cause and effect were still very much in effect that day.
Hence, because SOMETHING has to cause an effect, the towers imploded due to explosives being planted. Steel frame towers don't just collapse for no reason, something has to cause it to happen, at least in reality.
Hence, no stress had hit the lower floors before the collapse, yet the lower floors still exploded into FINE DUST, even before the top sections had fallen on them.
Hence, there's a lot of strong delusion all over the place concerning the magician in the cave, IE; Bin Laden and all too many people believe that lie,
Hence, the scripture is fulfilled.
This is the kind of shait that sickens me. These people take firemans quotes ouit of context to sucker people like Guest:
But if you read on...
"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."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"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."
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
Do you know all these buildings had transformer vaults?
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new pod people explanation...
QUOTE
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. . . ?”
But if you read on...
"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."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"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."
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
Do you know all these buildings had transformer vaults?
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new pod people explanation...
QUOTE
Paul henderson
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Henderson
told me a couple of weeks afterwards that it was simplly to
restructure the globlal economy. (somewhat like the 2nd world war).
Kinda curious about the WW2 reference. Do you have any more info on that? Britain was greatly at risk of losing her Empire as a result of WW2, so I find this kind of doubtful.
The US's finagling to get into WW2 was purely geostrategic, AFAIK, and FDR was basically anti-colonialism. As for Britain, I once read an article, which I unfortunately can't find, that indicated that British elites were the main culprits in building up Nazi Germany, including it's "miraculous" economic recovery from WW1 and Versailles. Not for love of Nazism, but because they wanted a counterweight to the USSR, and, in fact, finagled to get them into a war.
According to this article, Stalin was pleading with the West for a united front against more land grabs by Hitler, and only after it became clear that the West was being deceitful, did he sign the non-aggression Pact.
I have no idea about this article's scholarship.
As for 911, I think Mr. Henderson is on target. In fact, if Iran successfully establishes an oil bourse based on the euro, the US economy may well collapse, even if, by some miracle, we can still steal Iraq's oil and sell IT in dollars. The US dollar being the reserve currency of central banks all over the world is not simply the result of military power, but moreso the result of "petrodollar recycling".
Then again, I'm no economist, so don't quote me.
If the above is true, the close relationship between Israel and the US may guarantee that the US takes a fall. This scenario depends on Russia supplying Iran with, say, 15 nukes and the missiles to deliver them. If this were known to be the case, Israel may squelch any US attempt at an attack on Iran, and thus fail to prevent the establishment of said bourse. My guess is that Putin is no dummy, and this has already been done.
I'm no geostrategist, either, so don't quote me here, either.
Frankly, the "uni-polar" moment is bad for humanity, and is also proving catastrophic for the US. I'll be glad when it's over.
Talk about hypocrisy! steve1957 just put Bush on the mother of all pedestals! He is the antichrist? I'm not the one saying that moron is loved more people than Jesus. YOU ARE. I'm not the one saying he involved more people in this conspiracy than all past conspiracies in american histroy COMBINED, YOU ARE. So if ANYONE thinks highly of Bush it's YOU.
If you would use the slightest bit of common sense you'd see that just before the attack the administration was saying Saddam didn't have WMD. So what, they planned 9/11 in a weekend? What a moron...
The neo-cons USED 9/11 to murder. Of that their is evidence like Richard Clark, the downing street memos, Paul O'Niell, Scott Ritter, on and on. Or are they also in your little conspiracy...
Your either to stupid to know your helping the neo-cons or a neo-con. Which is it...
If you would use the slightest bit of common sense you'd see that just before the attack the administration was saying Saddam didn't have WMD. So what, they planned 9/11 in a weekend? What a moron...
The neo-cons USED 9/11 to murder. Of that their is evidence like Richard Clark, the downing street memos, Paul O'Niell, Scott Ritter, on and on. Or are they also in your little conspiracy...
Your either to stupid to know your helping the neo-cons or a neo-con. Which is it...
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 28 2005, 02:20 PM)
adoucette
2Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Scripture is being fulfilled right in front of our very eyes. Because as you know the lie (or at least one of them) is the magician in the cave suspended the laws of physics and reality to cause the WTC buildings to do something that has never, ever happened before, IE; steel frame structures collapsing within an hour and a half after a fire hits on one of it's floors.
Intelligent people who believe in God understand that He created the laws of physics and gravity and those laws don't change. Only God has the power to perform miracles, not Bin Laden and not Bush, so you can rest assured that the laws of reality did not change, even on 9/11, hence the laws of cause and effect were still very much in effect that day.
Hence, because SOMETHING has to cause an effect, the towers imploded due to explosives being planted. Steel frame towers don't just collapse for no reason, something has to cause it to happen, at least in reality.
Hence, no stress had hit the lower floors before the collapse, yet the lower floors still exploded into FINE DUST, even before the top sections had fallen on them.
Hence, there's a lot of strong delusion all over the place concerning the magician in the cave, IE; Bin Laden and all too many people believe that lie,
Hence, the scripture is fulfilled.
I ask for a formula and Steve posts SCRIPTURE??????
Now the Towers IMPLODED?????
Gosh, must have missed that in the videos. Please provide link to said IMPLOSION.
"something that has never, ever happened before, IE; steel frame structures collapsing within an hour and a half after a fire hits on one of it's floors."
Ah, Steve, you left out something that ALSO has never happened before, you know, like being run into by a 200,000 lb jet travelling at ~450 mph. And Steve YOU KNOW the fire was on more than one floor.
Lower floors exploded into fine dust even before the top sections had fallen on them????
Gosh, must have missed that too. That tower looked pretty good to me right up until the progressive collapse caught up with it. Got a link to the lower floors exploding into fine dust?
Arthur
2Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Scripture is being fulfilled right in front of our very eyes. Because as you know the lie (or at least one of them) is the magician in the cave suspended the laws of physics and reality to cause the WTC buildings to do something that has never, ever happened before, IE; steel frame structures collapsing within an hour and a half after a fire hits on one of it's floors.
Intelligent people who believe in God understand that He created the laws of physics and gravity and those laws don't change. Only God has the power to perform miracles, not Bin Laden and not Bush, so you can rest assured that the laws of reality did not change, even on 9/11, hence the laws of cause and effect were still very much in effect that day.
Hence, because SOMETHING has to cause an effect, the towers imploded due to explosives being planted. Steel frame towers don't just collapse for no reason, something has to cause it to happen, at least in reality.
Hence, no stress had hit the lower floors before the collapse, yet the lower floors still exploded into FINE DUST, even before the top sections had fallen on them.
Hence, there's a lot of strong delusion all over the place concerning the magician in the cave, IE; Bin Laden and all too many people believe that lie,
Hence, the scripture is fulfilled.
I ask for a formula and Steve posts SCRIPTURE??????
Now the Towers IMPLODED?????
Gosh, must have missed that in the videos. Please provide link to said IMPLOSION.
"something that has never, ever happened before, IE; steel frame structures collapsing within an hour and a half after a fire hits on one of it's floors."
Ah, Steve, you left out something that ALSO has never happened before, you know, like being run into by a 200,000 lb jet travelling at ~450 mph. And Steve YOU KNOW the fire was on more than one floor.
Lower floors exploded into fine dust even before the top sections had fallen on them????
Gosh, must have missed that too. That tower looked pretty good to me right up until the progressive collapse caught up with it. Got a link to the lower floors exploding into fine dust?
Arthur
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 28 2005, 05:36 AM)
Common sense,
I almost forgot, here's the link http://www.iwilltryit.com/
when you get there turn your speakers on, then click on the bible link and you can go to any book chapter and verse. You might learn something if you open up your ears. You might learn that the Lord told us to love one another and speak the truth, not murder, steal, lie and invade other countries to steal their oil.
Now I know the truth is your enemy for now, but maybe that will start changing in the near future and then you can get some knowledge.
It figures you also believe the bible. I'm a non-believer because their isn't enough evidence to support a super entity which knows all, see all yet need us to tell it how wonderfull it is once a week or it kills us.
But that's another thread in another forum.
Blind belief come easy for you I see.
I almost forgot, here's the link http://www.iwilltryit.com/
when you get there turn your speakers on, then click on the bible link and you can go to any book chapter and verse. You might learn something if you open up your ears. You might learn that the Lord told us to love one another and speak the truth, not murder, steal, lie and invade other countries to steal their oil.
Now I know the truth is your enemy for now, but maybe that will start changing in the near future and then you can get some knowledge.
It figures you also believe the bible. I'm a non-believer because their isn't enough evidence to support a super entity which knows all, see all yet need us to tell it how wonderfull it is once a week or it kills us.
But that's another thread in another forum.
Blind belief come easy for you I see.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 27 2005, 11:24 PM)
...I can't keep track of these idiots who think they're god's gift to science and comedy...
Me neither. I thought Schneibster might be gone for good, but alas, it turns out he is now back as 'Common Sense'. You need not worry about keeping track of him anymore...
Me neither. I thought Schneibster might be gone for good, but alas, it turns out he is now back as 'Common Sense'. You need not worry about keeping track of him anymore...
QUOTE (Mel+Dec 28 2005, 08:14 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 28 2005, 02:45 AM)
Ahhhh, yes... The Schniebster reappears as....
'Common Sense' !!!
I suspect it won't take long for 'Common Sense' to start referring to me as a 'Liar'
Excellent call on this one, Foxx. I knew he'd be back, it was just a question of when. I got the distinct feeling that things were getting a little too warm for Schneibster in here (and the GNN), so he opted out for a little while, only to reappear as 'Common Sense'.
True or not, I will now be reading ALL of Common Sense's postings as though they were Schneibster (the writing style sure fits nicely). Thanks.
Just don't call me "late for dinner".
'Common Sense' !!!
I suspect it won't take long for 'Common Sense' to start referring to me as a 'Liar'
Excellent call on this one, Foxx. I knew he'd be back, it was just a question of when. I got the distinct feeling that things were getting a little too warm for Schneibster in here (and the GNN), so he opted out for a little while, only to reappear as 'Common Sense'.
True or not, I will now be reading ALL of Common Sense's postings as though they were Schneibster (the writing style sure fits nicely). Thanks.
Just don't call me "late for dinner".
On being a 'shill'
I took a minute to review the members posting on this forum.
Turns out that by and large the people who are providing actual evidence that the towers weren't blown up are part of the larger Physorg Forum membership, i.e. they post in other forums and were posting on Physorg before this topic started.
That would include me, Schiebneister, a_ht, Reality Check, Solid Spin etc.
On the other hand, if you check out the CD/CT supporters you find that by and large they ONLY post in this one forum and only on this one subject.
That would include posters such as Foxx, Steve1957, Frater, Metamars, Cortez, London to SF, Mel and Andrew Johnson (and of course the ubiquitous GUEST).
So it makes me wonder, why is it that the people who are on this Forum, ONLY to peddle this one idea (and clearly some are peddling something, i.e. have their own web sites devoted to this idea and or DVDs etc), are the ones to call the posters who were here BEFORE they arrived, and who still continue to post in other forums, SHILLS?
Me Thinks the Ladies Doth Protest Too Much.
Arthur
I took a minute to review the members posting on this forum.
Turns out that by and large the people who are providing actual evidence that the towers weren't blown up are part of the larger Physorg Forum membership, i.e. they post in other forums and were posting on Physorg before this topic started.
That would include me, Schiebneister, a_ht, Reality Check, Solid Spin etc.
On the other hand, if you check out the CD/CT supporters you find that by and large they ONLY post in this one forum and only on this one subject.
That would include posters such as Foxx, Steve1957, Frater, Metamars, Cortez, London to SF, Mel and Andrew Johnson (and of course the ubiquitous GUEST).
So it makes me wonder, why is it that the people who are on this Forum, ONLY to peddle this one idea (and clearly some are peddling something, i.e. have their own web sites devoted to this idea and or DVDs etc), are the ones to call the posters who were here BEFORE they arrived, and who still continue to post in other forums, SHILLS?
Me Thinks the Ladies Doth Protest Too Much.
Arthur
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 28 2005, 02:43 PM)
...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."
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
I don't here a high pitched noise in the given link. Sounds more like the 'wind' to me
Where were they located?
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
I don't here a high pitched noise in the given link. Sounds more like the 'wind' to me
QUOTE
Do you know all these buildings had transformer vaults?
Where were they located?
Sorry, gordon; but since GRAVITY acceleration is ALWAYS acting on every part of a building, it is technically 'FALLING' ALL THE TIME...hence the 'weight' force that all parts of a building are continually imparting on all Lower parts of that building, even though they are NOT 'moving' as such. In other words, since these parts are always falling, the USUAL INERTIA aspect is erroneous when talking of a building 'STARTING' to move from a 'standing start'...because there IS no 'standing start', but always a 'falling start' temporarily obstructed by the integrity of the building structure supporting it against CONSTANT gravitational ACCELERATION. I think what you are confusing here is HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT FROM A STANDING START FROM A TRULY NON-ACCELERATED STATIONARY POSITION...which isn't the case with DOWNWARD VERTICAL MOVEMENT under conditions of gravity scenarios. Hope this helps. Gotta run, busy elsewhere. Good luck.
RealityCheck.
No man. Bit more complicated than that.
If you instantaneously remove a storey, then as well as the upper section falling, the lower section would unwind its static load deflection and move upwards. In doing so it must overcome its own inertia.
Similarly when the collision occurs, the downward moving section must overcome this upward movement, if at that point in time it was still continuing, before then instigating a downward movement
Your point about gravity always acting on the building is true but at equilibrium it is always opposed by the force, (through the Youngs modulus and stress/strain equations) occasioned by the static load deflection.
Force = E*(deformation/original length)*csa
E= youngs modulus
csa= cross sectional area
E, original length and csa are constants
therefore Force is directly proportional to deformation(within the elastic limit)
A force is that which changes, OR TENDS TO CHANGE, a bodies state of rest or motion.
Equilibrium has no unbalanced force and therefore no acceleration.
No acceleration and original velocity of zero, still means zero, whatever direction you are tending to travel.
On the other stuff check out a stress strain curve from a standard test.
You will find a proportional stress/strain relationship exhibited by a straight line on the graph from zero load and zero deflection up to the elastic limit. From that point and with additional load the graph becomes a bit more complex with yield, work hardening, Ultimate Stress, continued deformation and finally failure.
We can simplify this section of the graph by assuming a constant load would continue the deflection. It wouldn't, because the Ultimate load is bigger than the load at the elastic limit with steel, but it will give us a minimum value (in fact a large underestimation for small deflections) for the strain energy which can be absorbed by the plastic deformation
Strain energy would be the area under the graph, and would be force * distance
Hence the formula I gave before.
In tension the elongation can reach 40% of the original length
As I said in my earlier post it is unlikely that the columns would fail in compression, but more likely through buckling or shear.
But it is difficult to envisage a mechanism or scenario whereby the load necessary to cause plastic deformation would be lower than the elastic limit load, especially in the incremental time immediately after the elastic limit is reached.
It is also difficult to imagine a scenario where that necessary load would be reduced to zero or close to zero, at any point in time after collision, in order to allow further "free-falls" to again build up the velocity and KE
On the BZ stuff, I didn't know it existed until recently and when I did see it, I dismissed it as having no initiation mechanism worth considering and ignoring the real behaviour of the steel. It was only recently that I heard that these buildings were made from steel. Previously, due to a BBC graphic (which is still around and causing confusion as evidenced by this thread) I was under the impression that the towers were built from reinforced concrete. High sulphur cement, concrete cancer, corrosion occasioned spalling, were some of the ideas which I had at the back of my mind - things that I am not totally conversant with. But I say at the back of my mind because I didn't have any reason to look any deeper.
But when I learned about the core and the column construction things began to be a whole lot clearer and a whole lot murkier.
Why bother with BZ? The times derived from these ideas for the collapse duration are meaningless because their model, where the steelwork exhibited no ability to absorb strain energy, would never have stood up in the first place.
Gordon.
RealityCheck.
No man. Bit more complicated than that.
If you instantaneously remove a storey, then as well as the upper section falling, the lower section would unwind its static load deflection and move upwards. In doing so it must overcome its own inertia.
Similarly when the collision occurs, the downward moving section must overcome this upward movement, if at that point in time it was still continuing, before then instigating a downward movement
Your point about gravity always acting on the building is true but at equilibrium it is always opposed by the force, (through the Youngs modulus and stress/strain equations) occasioned by the static load deflection.
Force = E*(deformation/original length)*csa
E= youngs modulus
csa= cross sectional area
E, original length and csa are constants
therefore Force is directly proportional to deformation(within the elastic limit)
A force is that which changes, OR TENDS TO CHANGE, a bodies state of rest or motion.
Equilibrium has no unbalanced force and therefore no acceleration.
No acceleration and original velocity of zero, still means zero, whatever direction you are tending to travel.
On the other stuff check out a stress strain curve from a standard test.
You will find a proportional stress/strain relationship exhibited by a straight line on the graph from zero load and zero deflection up to the elastic limit. From that point and with additional load the graph becomes a bit more complex with yield, work hardening, Ultimate Stress, continued deformation and finally failure.
We can simplify this section of the graph by assuming a constant load would continue the deflection. It wouldn't, because the Ultimate load is bigger than the load at the elastic limit with steel, but it will give us a minimum value (in fact a large underestimation for small deflections) for the strain energy which can be absorbed by the plastic deformation
Strain energy would be the area under the graph, and would be force * distance
Hence the formula I gave before.
In tension the elongation can reach 40% of the original length
As I said in my earlier post it is unlikely that the columns would fail in compression, but more likely through buckling or shear.
But it is difficult to envisage a mechanism or scenario whereby the load necessary to cause plastic deformation would be lower than the elastic limit load, especially in the incremental time immediately after the elastic limit is reached.
It is also difficult to imagine a scenario where that necessary load would be reduced to zero or close to zero, at any point in time after collision, in order to allow further "free-falls" to again build up the velocity and KE
On the BZ stuff, I didn't know it existed until recently and when I did see it, I dismissed it as having no initiation mechanism worth considering and ignoring the real behaviour of the steel. It was only recently that I heard that these buildings were made from steel. Previously, due to a BBC graphic (which is still around and causing confusion as evidenced by this thread) I was under the impression that the towers were built from reinforced concrete. High sulphur cement, concrete cancer, corrosion occasioned spalling, were some of the ideas which I had at the back of my mind - things that I am not totally conversant with. But I say at the back of my mind because I didn't have any reason to look any deeper.
But when I learned about the core and the column construction things began to be a whole lot clearer and a whole lot murkier.
Why bother with BZ? The times derived from these ideas for the collapse duration are meaningless because their model, where the steelwork exhibited no ability to absorb strain energy, would never have stood up in the first place.
Gordon.
QUOTE (Mel+Dec 28 2005, 03:43 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 28 2005, 02:43 PM)
...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."
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
I don't here a high pitched noise in the given link. Sounds more like the 'wind' to me
Where were they located?
BTW, the Rovian tactics of character assassination by association didn't work when they connected Murtha to Michael Moore and they wont work here. Why? because Michael Moore was right about WMD just as Schniebster is right now. I take it as a complement.
I'm sure you feel just as smart as Rove did connecting those two. Heh!
I'll just keep pointing out facts like the transformer and fireman text which always gets snipped out of those 9/11 sites. (I wonder why????)
Well, then you obviously don't believe in Santa Claus, either! Hmmmf!!
And yet, there's even more photographic evidence for Santa Claus than there is of the WTC towers' explosive demolition.* Why, I saw Santa Claus with my own eyes in my local mall just recently.
* not the same as "demolition by explosives"
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
I don't here a high pitched noise in the given link. Sounds more like the 'wind' to me
QUOTE
Do you know all these buildings had transformer vaults?
Where were they located?
BTW, the Rovian tactics of character assassination by association didn't work when they connected Murtha to Michael Moore and they wont work here. Why? because Michael Moore was right about WMD just as Schniebster is right now. I take it as a complement.
I'm sure you feel just as smart as Rove did connecting those two. Heh!
I'll just keep pointing out facts like the transformer and fireman text which always gets snipped out of those 9/11 sites. (I wonder why????)
QUOTE (gordon.+Dec 28 2005, 05:47 AM)
You're making me do this at this time of night!!!!!!
Expect mistakes.
kinetic energy = (19m /2) *v^2
m = mass of 1 storey (assume roof weighs two storeys btw)
v = velocity (about 8m/s)
g = 9.81ms^-2
Strain energy = (100mg/2* 5.5mm*37) + (100mg x plastic deflection)
average force = 100mg/2
maximum force = 100mg
elastic deformation of storey 92 = 5.5mm (0.2%)
factor to include lower deflections = 37 ( summation of reciprocals of static loads)
Equating and eliminating m to solve for plastic deformation
pd = (9.5*v^2 - 11.75g) / 100g
pd = 0.519mm.
Of course this damage is as likely or more likely to occur in the upper section rather than the lower section, but even half and half it would only amount to 260mm each.
Not quite the three hundred and odd metres they were looking for.
Gordon.
Gordon,
Let me see if I've got this right.
You are claiming that the building is SO strong, that if you drop 19 stories of it 10 ft onto the bottom section, that it would take it just fine and that the deformation would be nearly impossible to measure, i.e a half a millimeter.
Excuse me if I find this hard to believe.
I mean the impact of the jet, which is considerably less force than the 1 story collapse of the top of the towers generate, moved the top of the tower 1 meter.
Not sure how both these can be true at the same time.
Secondly, the concept that the bottom structure could take such a load and only deflect a portion of a mm seems just a tad difficult to believe. Given these properties it seems strange that we would need to use columns nearly as large as we do.
I'm also curious, the equations you post seem pretty basic, and while you just learned that the towers were not re-inforced concrete, this was known to the NIST and FEMA teams. Why would you suppose that they ignored this fantastic property of steel to resist deformation? I mean they say that the Global collapse was inevitable and you say, no it would have moved SO LITTLE that if you weren't on the floor that got impacted you would not only be safe but you probably would'nt even feel it. Which means you and NIST aren't even in the same state, let alone the same ballpark.
Do you think its possible that you are missing something in your analysis?
Arthur
Expect mistakes.
kinetic energy = (19m /2) *v^2
m = mass of 1 storey (assume roof weighs two storeys btw)
v = velocity (about 8m/s)
g = 9.81ms^-2
Strain energy = (100mg/2* 5.5mm*37) + (100mg x plastic deflection)
average force = 100mg/2
maximum force = 100mg
elastic deformation of storey 92 = 5.5mm (0.2%)
factor to include lower deflections = 37 ( summation of reciprocals of static loads)
Equating and eliminating m to solve for plastic deformation
pd = (9.5*v^2 - 11.75g) / 100g
pd = 0.519mm.
Of course this damage is as likely or more likely to occur in the upper section rather than the lower section, but even half and half it would only amount to 260mm each.
Not quite the three hundred and odd metres they were looking for.
Gordon.
Gordon,
Let me see if I've got this right.
You are claiming that the building is SO strong, that if you drop 19 stories of it 10 ft onto the bottom section, that it would take it just fine and that the deformation would be nearly impossible to measure, i.e a half a millimeter.
Excuse me if I find this hard to believe.
I mean the impact of the jet, which is considerably less force than the 1 story collapse of the top of the towers generate, moved the top of the tower 1 meter.
Not sure how both these can be true at the same time.
Secondly, the concept that the bottom structure could take such a load and only deflect a portion of a mm seems just a tad difficult to believe. Given these properties it seems strange that we would need to use columns nearly as large as we do.
I'm also curious, the equations you post seem pretty basic, and while you just learned that the towers were not re-inforced concrete, this was known to the NIST and FEMA teams. Why would you suppose that they ignored this fantastic property of steel to resist deformation? I mean they say that the Global collapse was inevitable and you say, no it would have moved SO LITTLE that if you weren't on the floor that got impacted you would not only be safe but you probably would'nt even feel it. Which means you and NIST aren't even in the same state, let alone the same ballpark.
Do you think its possible that you are missing something in your analysis?
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 28 2005, 04:04 PM)
BTW, the Rovian tactics of character assassination by association didn't work when they connected Murtha to Michael Moore and they wont work here. Why? because Michael Moore was right about WMD just as Schniebster is right now. I take it as a complement.
Ahh, but it did work before, Schneibster. That's why you felt compelled to leave the 9/11 arena (here and GNN) and return as someone new.
Being caught in a blatant lie is difficult or impossible to recover from, and your new face proves it.
It begs the question, though: why are you really here? Your last words over at GNN were "My work with 9/11 is DONE. I have other fish to fry". And yet, you're back. I guess those other fish fried up quickly, huh? Or were you just on paid leave while a new persona was constructed for you?
I don't know what to make of you, Schneibster. Viewing your right-side profile reveals you as someone (m)aligned with the bad guys (the real perps of 9/11...just read your postings in this thread for all the evidence you need), but rotating the pedestal 180 degrees to your left profile reveals someone completely different (ex. all your anti-Bush posts at GNN). Your two-faced-ness is an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in a riddle.
I'm gonna leave you alone now (but I'll watch you like a hawk for more lies).
Ahh, but it did work before, Schneibster. That's why you felt compelled to leave the 9/11 arena (here and GNN) and return as someone new.
Being caught in a blatant lie is difficult or impossible to recover from, and your new face proves it.
It begs the question, though: why are you really here? Your last words over at GNN were "My work with 9/11 is DONE. I have other fish to fry". And yet, you're back. I guess those other fish fried up quickly, huh? Or were you just on paid leave while a new persona was constructed for you?
I don't know what to make of you, Schneibster. Viewing your right-side profile reveals you as someone (m)aligned with the bad guys (the real perps of 9/11...just read your postings in this thread for all the evidence you need), but rotating the pedestal 180 degrees to your left profile reveals someone completely different (ex. all your anti-Bush posts at GNN). Your two-faced-ness is an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in a riddle.
I'm gonna leave you alone now (but I'll watch you like a hawk for more lies).
Arthur quoted my workings when he said, "the deformation would be nearly impossible to measure, i.e a half a millimeter(?)."
Sorry, my mistake the pd should read 0.519m or 519mm.
Knew there would be at least one in there.
Arthur then added "I mean they (NIST) say that the Global collapse was inevitable"
What NIST say is that "Global collapse then ensued" which is not quite the same thing and avoids the link between initiation and promulgation.
I would dispute both their initiation mechanism and any premise which holds that partial collapse would inevitably lead to total collapse. If this were the case generally then there would be no such thing as a partial collapse because they would all eventually lead to total collapse. If this is being held up as a property unique to the towers or a group including the towers I would be very interested in the causation and reasoning behind such uniqueness.
NIST also include a footnote, which I'm sure someone will post if I ask nicely, which says, in effect, that in their model the initial collapse did not lead to global collapse.
G
Sorry, my mistake the pd should read 0.519m or 519mm.
Knew there would be at least one in there.
Arthur then added "I mean they (NIST) say that the Global collapse was inevitable"
What NIST say is that "Global collapse then ensued" which is not quite the same thing and avoids the link between initiation and promulgation.
I would dispute both their initiation mechanism and any premise which holds that partial collapse would inevitably lead to total collapse. If this were the case generally then there would be no such thing as a partial collapse because they would all eventually lead to total collapse. If this is being held up as a property unique to the towers or a group including the towers I would be very interested in the causation and reasoning behind such uniqueness.
NIST also include a footnote, which I'm sure someone will post if I ask nicely, which says, in effect, that in their model the initial collapse did not lead to global collapse.
G
QUOTE
It figures you also believe the bible. I'm a non-believer because their isn't enough evidence to support a super entity which knows all
Well, then you obviously don't believe in Santa Claus, either! Hmmmf!!
And yet, there's even more photographic evidence for Santa Claus than there is of the WTC towers' explosive demolition.* Why, I saw Santa Claus with my own eyes in my local mall just recently.
* not the same as "demolition by explosives"
QUOTE (Mel+Dec 28 2005, 04:37 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 28 2005, 04:04 PM)
BTW, the Rovian tactics of character assassination by association didn't work when they connected Murtha to Michael Moore and they wont work here. Why? because Michael Moore was right about WMD just as Schniebster is right now. I take it as a complement.
Ahh, but it did work before, Schneibster. That's why you felt compelled to leave the 9/11 arena (here and GNN) and return as someone new.
Being caught in a blatant lie is difficult or impossible to recover from, and your new face proves it.
It begs the question, though: why are you really here? Your last words over at GNN were "My work with 9/11 is DONE. I have other fish to fry". And yet, you're back. I guess those other fish fried up quickly, huh? Or were you just on paid leave while a new persona was constructed for you?
I don't know what to make of you, Schneibster. Viewing your right-side profile reveals you as someone (m)aligned with the bad guys (the real perps of 9/11...just read your postings in this thread for all the evidence you need), but rotating the pedestal 180 degrees to your left profile reveals someone completely different (ex. all your anti-Bush posts at GNN). Your two-faced-ness is an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in a riddle.
I'm gonna leave you alone now (but I'll watch you like a hawk for more lies).
Heh! This reminds me of Cheney pointing to a NY Times article where they quote Cheney to prove Cheney isn't lying. HEHEHE
The only thing Schneibster did wrong was the same thing adoucette did in linking the landing gear picture and YOU are doing. Believing a WORD on those 9/11 sites.
I just love when people produce links which hurt their own case. Just follow the links people. Read them all and you'll see Schneibster made the mistake of using information which comes from 9/11 web sites. And for this he is called a liar. HAHAHA. I'm sure this long time member doesn't have the need to waste time on this non-sense. But that's OK, I do. I'm not going anywhere.
The blatant dishonesty in your allegation is telling. You must lie for a living. How much does the Administration pay you? I hear 250,000 is the going rate for Armstrong. Don't let them low ball you. Heh!
Now could the flashes and sounds fireman heard be from transformers blowing up? Yes or no... I'll remind you the court has you under oath.
Or is the purpose your here is to call people liars. That's OK. I can do that to. YOU LAIR! Heh!
Unfortunately, BZ was used to "debunk" demolition hypotheses, including in this thread. I smelled a rat (or two) immediately, even before I understood the paper better.
What I don't understand is: if I could smell a rat, why couldn't the construction engineering community? This is, after all, their area of expertise.
Ahh, but it did work before, Schneibster. That's why you felt compelled to leave the 9/11 arena (here and GNN) and return as someone new.
Being caught in a blatant lie is difficult or impossible to recover from, and your new face proves it.
It begs the question, though: why are you really here? Your last words over at GNN were "My work with 9/11 is DONE. I have other fish to fry". And yet, you're back. I guess those other fish fried up quickly, huh? Or were you just on paid leave while a new persona was constructed for you?
I don't know what to make of you, Schneibster. Viewing your right-side profile reveals you as someone (m)aligned with the bad guys (the real perps of 9/11...just read your postings in this thread for all the evidence you need), but rotating the pedestal 180 degrees to your left profile reveals someone completely different (ex. all your anti-Bush posts at GNN). Your two-faced-ness is an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in a riddle.
I'm gonna leave you alone now (but I'll watch you like a hawk for more lies).
Heh! This reminds me of Cheney pointing to a NY Times article where they quote Cheney to prove Cheney isn't lying. HEHEHE
The only thing Schneibster did wrong was the same thing adoucette did in linking the landing gear picture and YOU are doing. Believing a WORD on those 9/11 sites.
I just love when people produce links which hurt their own case. Just follow the links people. Read them all and you'll see Schneibster made the mistake of using information which comes from 9/11 web sites. And for this he is called a liar. HAHAHA. I'm sure this long time member doesn't have the need to waste time on this non-sense. But that's OK, I do. I'm not going anywhere.
The blatant dishonesty in your allegation is telling. You must lie for a living. How much does the Administration pay you? I hear 250,000 is the going rate for Armstrong. Don't let them low ball you. Heh!
Now could the flashes and sounds fireman heard be from transformers blowing up? Yes or no... I'll remind you the court has you under oath.
Or is the purpose your here is to call people liars. That's OK. I can do that to. YOU LAIR! Heh!
QUOTE
Why bother with BZ? The times derived from these ideas for the collapse duration are meaningless because their model, where the steelwork exhibited no ability to absorb strain energy, would never have stood up in the first place.
Unfortunately, BZ was used to "debunk" demolition hypotheses, including in this thread. I smelled a rat (or two) immediately, even before I understood the paper better.
What I don't understand is: if I could smell a rat, why couldn't the construction engineering community? This is, after all, their area of expertise.
Given the impasse can we highlight areas where agreement is possible and the implications of such agreement?
For a start - visual evidence shows beyond question that a great deal of the upper structure fell outwith the perimeters of buildings WTC 1 & 2. Agreed?
This means the forces acting on the lower structure would be "a great deal" less than the forces calculated here and in the official scenario. Agreed?
It follows that if the official scenario, using greater than visually possible forces, CANNOT account for the collapse without adding even greater forces (tweaking) then a new approach is required. Agreed?
A fully independent inquiry with access to all relevant data, such as that called for by Professor Jones, would be the best approach. Agreed?
Agreed or agreived?
For a start - visual evidence shows beyond question that a great deal of the upper structure fell outwith the perimeters of buildings WTC 1 & 2. Agreed?
This means the forces acting on the lower structure would be "a great deal" less than the forces calculated here and in the official scenario. Agreed?
It follows that if the official scenario, using greater than visually possible forces, CANNOT account for the collapse without adding even greater forces (tweaking) then a new approach is required. Agreed?
A fully independent inquiry with access to all relevant data, such as that called for by Professor Jones, would be the best approach. Agreed?
Agreed or agreived?
What I don't understand is: if I could smell a rat, why couldn't the construction engineering community?
Who's looking? ----- I wasn't, for over four years.
And even if you are interested it seems to be very complex and chaotic at first glance, so why bother? No reason to suspect anything other than the official line. OK so it might have holes in it but you would expect an incomplete picture.
It's only when you begin to examine, read and quantify that the picture becomes clear. And even then you can't believe what mechanics and logic are saying to you.
Check out some of the comments received and included in the NIST final report. You will notice that these have been largely limited to a response to the NIST recommendations, rather than a critique of their proposed mechanisms. But even so you do get a flavour of "unease" among some of the authors.
G
Who's looking? ----- I wasn't, for over four years.
And even if you are interested it seems to be very complex and chaotic at first glance, so why bother? No reason to suspect anything other than the official line. OK so it might have holes in it but you would expect an incomplete picture.
It's only when you begin to examine, read and quantify that the picture becomes clear. And even then you can't believe what mechanics and logic are saying to you.
Check out some of the comments received and included in the NIST final report. You will notice that these have been largely limited to a response to the NIST recommendations, rather than a critique of their proposed mechanisms. But even so you do get a flavour of "unease" among some of the authors.
G
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 23 2005, 11:31 PM)
yesitdid
Dec 23 2005, 08:44 PM
This is definitely wrong. If you go back to page 4 or 5 you can see that I (Jon Pratt) have worked both as a setting out engineer and as as a structural engineer, from 1989 to 1995. The cement is supported in-situ normally with plywood, although sometimes with metal barriers (shuttering), both coated with a non-stick liquid called mold oil. The steel mesh embedded within the cement is not called reinforcement steel for nothing, without mentioning the physical impossibility of reinforcement steel (normally between 5-20 mm diameter lengths) holding up any quantity whatsoever of liquid cement.
I'm not going to speculate about the reasons for this undeniable error, you only need to know it is not true.
nice metaphor zoktoberfest
p.s concrete normally is chosen by it's strength. I remember working a lot with forty and fifty NEWTON strength cement, if that's help to anyone.
p.p.s any structural engineer that accepts the "official conspiracy theory" regarding the building collapses is one of the following...
a)too afraid to accept the truth
a liar
c) being paid to do
d)all of the above
Since when is reinforcing steel mesh referred to as a "corrugated steel pan"?
Every article about the construction of the towers that mentions the concrete refers to it as "lightweight" concrete which certainly suggests that in this case it was chosen not for its strength so much as for it's mass density.
BTW 'puter crashed on Friday, "page error in non-paged area" so that is why I have been gone from this forum for a while. If I were of a conspiratorial bent I would assume that someone here planted a virus on my computer.
Now posting at lunch, from work.
Dec 23 2005, 08:44 PM
QUOTE
They provide little in the way of structural stability to the floor since all they were required to do was take the weight of the cement mix until it hardened.
This is definitely wrong. If you go back to page 4 or 5 you can see that I (Jon Pratt) have worked both as a setting out engineer and as as a structural engineer, from 1989 to 1995. The cement is supported in-situ normally with plywood, although sometimes with metal barriers (shuttering), both coated with a non-stick liquid called mold oil. The steel mesh embedded within the cement is not called reinforcement steel for nothing, without mentioning the physical impossibility of reinforcement steel (normally between 5-20 mm diameter lengths) holding up any quantity whatsoever of liquid cement.
I'm not going to speculate about the reasons for this undeniable error, you only need to know it is not true.
nice metaphor zoktoberfest
p.s concrete normally is chosen by it's strength. I remember working a lot with forty and fifty NEWTON strength cement, if that's help to anyone.
p.p.s any structural engineer that accepts the "official conspiracy theory" regarding the building collapses is one of the following...
a)too afraid to accept the truth
a liarc) being paid to do
d)all of the above
Since when is reinforcing steel mesh referred to as a "corrugated steel pan"?
Every article about the construction of the towers that mentions the concrete refers to it as "lightweight" concrete which certainly suggests that in this case it was chosen not for its strength so much as for it's mass density.
BTW 'puter crashed on Friday, "page error in non-paged area" so that is why I have been gone from this forum for a while. If I were of a conspiratorial bent I would assume that someone here planted a virus on my computer.
Now posting at lunch, from work.
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 28 2005, 02:20 PM)
adoucette
2Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Scripture is being fulfilled right in front of our very eyes. Because as you know the lie (or at least one of them) is the magician in the cave suspended the laws of physics and reality to cause the WTC buildings to do something that has never, ever happened before, IE; steel frame structures collapsing within an hour and a half after a fire hits on one of it's floors.
Intelligent people who believe in God understand that He created the laws of physics and gravity and those laws don't change. Only God has the power to perform miracles, not Bin Laden and not Bush, so you can rest assured that the laws of reality did not change, even on 9/11, hence the laws of cause and effect were still very much in effect that day.
Hence, because SOMETHING has to cause an effect, the towers imploded due to explosives being planted. Steel frame towers don't just collapse for no reason, something has to cause it to happen, at least in reality.
Hence, no stress had hit the lower floors before the collapse, yet the lower floors still exploded into FINE DUST, even before the top sections had fallen on them.
Hence, there's a lot of strong delusion all over the place concerning the magician in the cave, IE; Bin Laden and all too many people believe that lie,
Hence, the scripture is fulfilled.
Now if I were of a conspiratorial bent I would immediately recognize that I have had scripture quoted to me before by Foxx and thus make the bold assertion that steve and Foxx are the same person.
2Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Scripture is being fulfilled right in front of our very eyes. Because as you know the lie (or at least one of them) is the magician in the cave suspended the laws of physics and reality to cause the WTC buildings to do something that has never, ever happened before, IE; steel frame structures collapsing within an hour and a half after a fire hits on one of it's floors.
Intelligent people who believe in God understand that He created the laws of physics and gravity and those laws don't change. Only God has the power to perform miracles, not Bin Laden and not Bush, so you can rest assured that the laws of reality did not change, even on 9/11, hence the laws of cause and effect were still very much in effect that day.
Hence, because SOMETHING has to cause an effect, the towers imploded due to explosives being planted. Steel frame towers don't just collapse for no reason, something has to cause it to happen, at least in reality.
Hence, no stress had hit the lower floors before the collapse, yet the lower floors still exploded into FINE DUST, even before the top sections had fallen on them.
Hence, there's a lot of strong delusion all over the place concerning the magician in the cave, IE; Bin Laden and all too many people believe that lie,
Hence, the scripture is fulfilled.
Now if I were of a conspiratorial bent I would immediately recognize that I have had scripture quoted to me before by Foxx and thus make the bold assertion that steve and Foxx are the same person.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Dec 28 2005, 06:33 PM)
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 28 2005, 02:20 PM)
adoucette
2Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Scripture is being fulfilled right in front of our very eyes. Because as you know the lie (or at least one of them) is the magician in the cave suspended the laws of physics and reality to cause the WTC buildings to do something that has never, ever happened before, IE; steel frame structures collapsing within an hour and a half after a fire hits on one of it's floors.
Intelligent people who believe in God understand that He created the laws of physics and gravity and those laws don't change. Only God has the power to perform miracles, not Bin Laden and not Bush, so you can rest assured that the laws of reality did not change, even on 9/11, hence the laws of cause and effect were still very much in effect that day.
Hence, because SOMETHING has to cause an effect, the towers imploded due to explosives being planted. Steel frame towers don't just collapse for no reason, something has to cause it to happen, at least in reality.
Hence, no stress had hit the lower floors before the collapse, yet the lower floors still exploded into FINE DUST, even before the top sections had fallen on them.
Hence, there's a lot of strong delusion all over the place concerning the magician in the cave, IE; Bin Laden and all too many people believe that lie,
Hence, the scripture is fulfilled.
Now if I were of a conspiratorial bent I would immediately recognize that I have had scripture quoted to me before by Foxx and thus make the bold assertion that steve and Foxx are the same person.
Great point! I knew it!
Common sense time again folks. The photos of the perimeter walls bowing 10 inches inward is what?
-The NIST is made up of shills
-The photographer never saw this document which shows his photo being used to cover up the largest mass murder in American history. The photo is doctored.
-The photographer is a shill
-The photo shows bowing in of the perimeter caused by trusses bowed down from a loss of strength due to fire.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
2Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Scripture is being fulfilled right in front of our very eyes. Because as you know the lie (or at least one of them) is the magician in the cave suspended the laws of physics and reality to cause the WTC buildings to do something that has never, ever happened before, IE; steel frame structures collapsing within an hour and a half after a fire hits on one of it's floors.
Intelligent people who believe in God understand that He created the laws of physics and gravity and those laws don't change. Only God has the power to perform miracles, not Bin Laden and not Bush, so you can rest assured that the laws of reality did not change, even on 9/11, hence the laws of cause and effect were still very much in effect that day.
Hence, because SOMETHING has to cause an effect, the towers imploded due to explosives being planted. Steel frame towers don't just collapse for no reason, something has to cause it to happen, at least in reality.
Hence, no stress had hit the lower floors before the collapse, yet the lower floors still exploded into FINE DUST, even before the top sections had fallen on them.
Hence, there's a lot of strong delusion all over the place concerning the magician in the cave, IE; Bin Laden and all too many people believe that lie,
Hence, the scripture is fulfilled.
Now if I were of a conspiratorial bent I would immediately recognize that I have had scripture quoted to me before by Foxx and thus make the bold assertion that steve and Foxx are the same person.
Great point! I knew it!
Common sense time again folks. The photos of the perimeter walls bowing 10 inches inward is what?
-The NIST is made up of shills
-The photographer never saw this document which shows his photo being used to cover up the largest mass murder in American history. The photo is doctored.
-The photographer is a shill
-The photo shows bowing in of the perimeter caused by trusses bowed down from a loss of strength due to fire.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
[heh! that took time to work...]
Great point! Then again, Bible thumpers are Bush's main trough.
Common sense time again folks. The photos of the perimeter walls bowing 10 inches inward is what?
-The NIST is made up of shills
-The photographer never saw this document which shows his photo being used to cover up the largest mass murder in American history. The photo is doctored.
-The photographer is a shill
-The photo shows bowing in of the perimeter caused by trusses bowed down from a loss of strength due to fire.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Great point! Then again, Bible thumpers are Bush's main trough.
Common sense time again folks. The photos of the perimeter walls bowing 10 inches inward is what?
-The NIST is made up of shills
-The photographer never saw this document which shows his photo being used to cover up the largest mass murder in American history. The photo is doctored.
-The photographer is a shill
-The photo shows bowing in of the perimeter caused by trusses bowed down from a loss of strength due to fire.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Great point! Then again, Bible thumpers are Bush's main trough.
Common sense time again folks. The photos of the perimeter walls bowing 10 inches inward is what?
-The NIST is made up of shills
-The photographer never saw this document which shows his photo being used to cover up the largest mass murder in American history. The photo is doctored.
-The photographer is a shill
-The photo shows bowing in of the perimeter caused by trusses bowed down from a loss of strength due to fire.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Common sense time again folks. The photos of the perimeter walls bowing 10 inches inward is what?
-The NIST is made up of shills
-The photographer never saw this document which shows his photo being used to cover up the largest mass murder in American history. The photo is doctored.
-The photographer is a shill
-The photo shows bowing in of the perimeter caused by trusses bowed down from a loss of strength due to fire.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
yesitdid,
It's true that a lot of people abuse and misuse the scripture for personal gain, but on the other hand "If the shoe fits then wear it" and in this case it's pretty obvious that the delusion is so thick that people think a magician in a cave suspended the laws of physics.
On one hand it's almost funny reading some of the posts from people like arthur and common sense, who pretend to be legitimate people when their posts reveal their obvious mental deficits.
And on the other hand it is kind of sad to see just how far some peoples minds can deteriorate into the abyss, but then that's what happens when people hang on to fairy tales.
One last thing about the conspiracy theory is this. It's the crazy wackos who deny the existence of true physics and gravity that are practicing the conspiracy theories, whereas a few others that are legitimate are merely seeking for honest answers as to how the towers could have collapsed.
It's the free thinking people who are trying to use truth and logic to assess what really caused the towers to collapse, whereas the nut cases who support little bush have become mindless zombies that can only parrot what their leader tells them.
It's true that a lot of people abuse and misuse the scripture for personal gain, but on the other hand "If the shoe fits then wear it" and in this case it's pretty obvious that the delusion is so thick that people think a magician in a cave suspended the laws of physics.
On one hand it's almost funny reading some of the posts from people like arthur and common sense, who pretend to be legitimate people when their posts reveal their obvious mental deficits.
And on the other hand it is kind of sad to see just how far some peoples minds can deteriorate into the abyss, but then that's what happens when people hang on to fairy tales.
One last thing about the conspiracy theory is this. It's the crazy wackos who deny the existence of true physics and gravity that are practicing the conspiracy theories, whereas a few others that are legitimate are merely seeking for honest answers as to how the towers could have collapsed.
It's the free thinking people who are trying to use truth and logic to assess what really caused the towers to collapse, whereas the nut cases who support little bush have become mindless zombies that can only parrot what their leader tells them.
Synaptically challenged people like Steve shouldn't try to wrap that ground beef he calls a brain around something so complex as a 110 story office building collapse. That's why the big boys use computer models which are the only means to take most of the factors into account. Note Steve's only response is attack. Not much unlike the morons in the white house. Yeah, Jesus would do exactly what Steve is doing. Pretending to be an expert in structural engineering. I think it's in the bible somewhere... I on the other hand know I'm not a structural engineer but I also don't know of any structural engineers who bought this non-sense. I unlike Steve leave it to the people who should know. People who went to school for this. That's the HONEST thing to do. Because NOBODY has even ONE shred of evidence BUSH is involved yet they yap endlessly on his guilt. Even if the towers WERE blown up (No evidence for it yet) it could have been a home grown terrorist like Mcveigh. So don't talk to me about truth and honesty. You have 0
Your credibility has now fallen faster than the towers themselves. Heh!
Steve's credibility in real time ->
Your credibility has now fallen faster than the towers themselves. Heh!
Steve's credibility in real time ->
FYI: "Common Sense" is Yesitdid. You shills are pathetic.
tower seven fell at the rate of gravity in a VACUUM. not even air was there to resist the instant collapse.
and you are using that piece of information to attack conspiracy theorists?
funny, that.
you seem confused for someone who calls themself 'common sense'. this thread is not entitled 'link bush to the conspiracy'. that is a non-sequitor that you have added in to TRY and bolster your 'arguments'.
anyway, just for you, marvin bush is the link, as is the bin laden family, as is the safari club and grover norquist. oh yeah, and PNAC.
and you are using that piece of information to attack conspiracy theorists?
funny, that.
you seem confused for someone who calls themself 'common sense'. this thread is not entitled 'link bush to the conspiracy'. that is a non-sequitor that you have added in to TRY and bolster your 'arguments'.
anyway, just for you, marvin bush is the link, as is the bin laden family, as is the safari club and grover norquist. oh yeah, and PNAC.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 28 2005, 07:24 PM)
FYI: "Common Sense" is Yesitdid. You shills are pathetic.
Guest is steve and mel. You shills are pathetic. Heh!
Anymore Barny Fife's in the house?
Guest is steve and mel. You shills are pathetic. Heh!
Anymore Barny Fife's in the house?
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 27 2005, 06:27 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+)
Of course, what Mr. Silverstein really meant by this statement could be easily ascertained simply by asking the man what he meant, under oath.
DA: Now Mr. Silverstein, would you please tell the court what you meant by "pull it"?
Silverstein: I meant that we shouldn't risk any more human lives and we should pull the firefighting efforts.
DA: Oh come on Mr. Silverstein, EVERYBODY KNOWS that "Pull it" is the phrase the Controlled Demolitionists use when they are discussing a CD. Do you mean to tell us that you just HAPPENED to use the same phrase just before the WTC 7 building collapsed?
Silverstein: Yes
DA: Mr Silverstein, do you think we are that STUPID?
Silverstein: Apparently so.
Arthur
Why would a fire chief be asking silverstien about safty related issues. I have never heard of the owner of a building deciding if a structure is safe for firefighters (if you have a reference please provide).
It might if it was an overload that was causing the explosion. However another explanation of a " high-pitched noise " would be steel columns being bent,.
Many of the quotes about explosions refer to the time at the very beginning of the collapse. Again I ask(for which I have received little response) , just what is it supposed to sound like when the upper section hits the lower part of the tower? A hiss, a tinkle, or a poof?
DA: Now Mr. Silverstein, would you please tell the court what you meant by "pull it"?
Silverstein: I meant that we shouldn't risk any more human lives and we should pull the firefighting efforts.
DA: Oh come on Mr. Silverstein, EVERYBODY KNOWS that "Pull it" is the phrase the Controlled Demolitionists use when they are discussing a CD. Do you mean to tell us that you just HAPPENED to use the same phrase just before the WTC 7 building collapsed?
Silverstein: Yes
DA: Mr Silverstein, do you think we are that STUPID?
Silverstein: Apparently so.
Arthur
Why would a fire chief be asking silverstien about safty related issues. I have never heard of the owner of a building deciding if a structure is safe for firefighters (if you have a reference please provide).
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
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
"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.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
- World Trade Center lease holder, Larry Silverstein, commenting on the demolition of Building 7 in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds", which aired in September of 2002
Video: http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3
In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero (weeks after 9-11) also uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6:
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3
"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
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
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
"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.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
- World Trade Center lease holder, Larry Silverstein, commenting on the demolition of Building 7 in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds", which aired in September of 2002
Video: http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3
In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero (weeks after 9-11) also uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6:
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3
"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
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 28 2005, 07:24 PM)
FYI: "Common Sense" is Yesitdid. You shills are pathetic.
ROFLMAO
Given that C.S.'s style of posting is completely unlike mine just what do you, oh, anonymous guest, base this upon?
No, wait , I know, it is precisely because my posts do not resemble Common Sense's posts proves that I am indeed that person as well and I am only responding to attempt to throw the 'truth seekers' off the trail.
ROFLMAO
Given that C.S.'s style of posting is completely unlike mine just what do you, oh, anonymous guest, base this upon?
No, wait , I know, it is precisely because my posts do not resemble Common Sense's posts proves that I am indeed that person as well and I am only responding to attempt to throw the 'truth seekers' off the trail.
QUOTE (newton+Dec 28 2005, 07:31 PM)
tower seven fell at the rate of gravity in a VACUUM. not even air was there to resist the instant collapse.
and you are using that piece of information to attack conspiracy theorists?
funny, that.
you seem confused for someone who calls themself 'common sense'. this thread is not entitled 'link bush to the conspiracy'. that is a non-sequitor that you have added in to TRY and bolster your 'arguments'.
anyway, just for you, marvin bush is the link, as is the bin laden family, as is the safari club and grover norquist. oh yeah, and PNAC.
If you think that converted to gif video is proof of real time then it does more to prove your insanity than any conspiracy.
Your "non-sequitur" comes up more by people on your side. Anytime someone disagrees with the 9/11 sites they are labeled Bush lovers. It's the "Your either with us or against us" mentality. Ironically people on your side are using it. I wonder why? And just like people who question the president I flip the argument and say it's YOU who are the Bush lovers. At least I have evidence for what I'm saying. You seem to think that band of clowns can juggle the largest, most elaborate, well thought out conspiracy in this nations history. A conspiracy only YOU can uncover. Heh!
and you are using that piece of information to attack conspiracy theorists?
funny, that.
you seem confused for someone who calls themself 'common sense'. this thread is not entitled 'link bush to the conspiracy'. that is a non-sequitor that you have added in to TRY and bolster your 'arguments'.
anyway, just for you, marvin bush is the link, as is the bin laden family, as is the safari club and grover norquist. oh yeah, and PNAC.
If you think that converted to gif video is proof of real time then it does more to prove your insanity than any conspiracy.
Your "non-sequitur" comes up more by people on your side. Anytime someone disagrees with the 9/11 sites they are labeled Bush lovers. It's the "Your either with us or against us" mentality. Ironically people on your side are using it. I wonder why? And just like people who question the president I flip the argument and say it's YOU who are the Bush lovers. At least I have evidence for what I'm saying. You seem to think that band of clowns can juggle the largest, most elaborate, well thought out conspiracy in this nations history. A conspiracy only YOU can uncover. Heh!
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 28 2005, 02:43 PM)
This is the kind of shait that sickens me. These people take firemans quotes ouit of context to sucker people like Guest:
But if you read on...
"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."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"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."
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
Do you know all these buildings had transformer vaults?
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new pod people explanation...
What part of "Those web sites are leaving things out to mislead you" do you not understand?
QUOTE
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. . . ?”
But if you read on...
"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."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"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."
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
Do you know all these buildings had transformer vaults?
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new pod people explanation...
What part of "Those web sites are leaving things out to mislead you" do you not understand?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 28 2005, 01:38 AM)
Here is the interview which I'm sure you know about...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
"Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...igro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt
What we have for sure...
Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
It means "PULL" the teams out!
Thank you for using common sense. Have a nice day...
I'm going to keep reposting this until it sinks in...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
"Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...igro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt
What we have for sure...
Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
It means "PULL" the teams out!
Thank you for using common sense. Have a nice day...
I'm going to keep reposting this until it sinks in...
QUOTE
"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."
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
...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."
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
It might if it was an overload that was causing the explosion. However another explanation of a " high-pitched noise " would be steel columns being bent,.
Many of the quotes about explosions refer to the time at the very beginning of the collapse. Again I ask(for which I have received little response) , just what is it supposed to sound like when the upper section hits the lower part of the tower? A hiss, a tinkle, or a poof?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 28 2005, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Dec 28 2005, 07:31 PM)
tower seven fell at the rate of gravity in a VACUUM. not even air was there to resist the instant collapse.
and you are using that piece of information to attack conspiracy theorists?
funny, that.
you seem confused for someone who calls themself 'common sense'. this thread is not entitled 'link bush to the conspiracy'. that is a non-sequitor that you have added in to TRY and bolster your 'arguments'.
anyway, just for you, marvin bush is the link, as is the bin laden family, as is the safari club and grover norquist. oh yeah, and PNAC.
If you think that converted to gif video is proof of real time then it does more to prove your insanity than any conspiracy.
Your "non-sequitur" comes up more by people on your side. Anytime someone disagrees with the 9/11 sites they are labeled Bush lovers. It's the "Your either with us or against us" mentality. Ironically people on your side are using it. I wonder why? And just like people who question the president I flip the argument and say it's YOU who are the Bush lovers. At least I have evidence for what I'm saying. You seem to think that band of clowns can juggle the largest, most elaborate, well thought out conspiracy in this nations history. A conspiracy only YOU can uncover. Heh!
The idea that the buildings fell faster than true free fall has been used more than once. It simply illustrates the lack of technical knowledge that the writer has.(or that the writer wishes to incorporate a "buck Rogers" weapon)
It might if it was an overload that was causing the explosion. However another explanation of a " high-pitched noise " would be steel columns being bent,.
Many of the quotes about explosions refer to the time at the very beginning of the collapse. Again I ask(for which I have received little response) , just what is it supposed to sound like when the upper section hits the lower part of the tower? A hiss, a tinkle, or a poof?
This is true which is why none of these people posting quotes are qualified to know what they are talking about. All we can do is guess.
But what really tells me all I need to know about these 9/11 conspiracy sights is they only post the part of the quote which helps their case as I've shown.
and you are using that piece of information to attack conspiracy theorists?
funny, that.
you seem confused for someone who calls themself 'common sense'. this thread is not entitled 'link bush to the conspiracy'. that is a non-sequitor that you have added in to TRY and bolster your 'arguments'.
anyway, just for you, marvin bush is the link, as is the bin laden family, as is the safari club and grover norquist. oh yeah, and PNAC.
If you think that converted to gif video is proof of real time then it does more to prove your insanity than any conspiracy.
Your "non-sequitur" comes up more by people on your side. Anytime someone disagrees with the 9/11 sites they are labeled Bush lovers. It's the "Your either with us or against us" mentality. Ironically people on your side are using it. I wonder why? And just like people who question the president I flip the argument and say it's YOU who are the Bush lovers. At least I have evidence for what I'm saying. You seem to think that band of clowns can juggle the largest, most elaborate, well thought out conspiracy in this nations history. A conspiracy only YOU can uncover. Heh!
The idea that the buildings fell faster than true free fall has been used more than once. It simply illustrates the lack of technical knowledge that the writer has.(or that the writer wishes to incorporate a "buck Rogers" weapon)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Dec 28 2005, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE
"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."
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
...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."
Gee... I wonder what that high pitched noise could be... Do TRANSFORMERS make high pitched noise before blowing up...
It might if it was an overload that was causing the explosion. However another explanation of a " high-pitched noise " would be steel columns being bent,.
Many of the quotes about explosions refer to the time at the very beginning of the collapse. Again I ask(for which I have received little response) , just what is it supposed to sound like when the upper section hits the lower part of the tower? A hiss, a tinkle, or a poof?
This is true which is why none of these people posting quotes are qualified to know what they are talking about. All we can do is guess.
But what really tells me all I need to know about these 9/11 conspiracy sights is they only post the part of the quote which helps their case as I've shown.
Shill wrote: "What part of "Those web sites are leaving things out to mislead you" do you not understand?"
What part of these quotes don't YOU understand you dumb monkey?
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
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
"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.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
- World Trade Center lease holder, Larry Silverstein, commenting on the demolition of Building 7 in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds", which aired in September of 2002
Video: http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3
In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero (weeks after 9-11) also uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6:
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3
"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
What part of these quotes don't YOU understand you dumb monkey?
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
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
"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.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
- World Trade Center lease holder, Larry Silverstein, commenting on the demolition of Building 7 in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds", which aired in September of 2002
Video: http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3
In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero (weeks after 9-11) also uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6:
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3
"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
Did not have time to read all the sites quoted but here's a few thoughts.
Already adressed, he goes on to state that it was likely electrical explosions of the light fixtures.
Already adressed, he goes on to state that it was likely electrical explosions of the light fixtures.
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
Key words, " originally had thought "
"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/
As I said before, just what is the collapse of the top section onto the lower section supposed to have sounded like? Why does a loud boom signify explosives only?
As I said before, just what is the collapse of the top section onto the lower section supposed to have sounded like? Why does a loud boom signify explosives only?
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
Key words "At first I thought "
uh, this is the same guy as in the first quote at the top of this quote is it not?
uh, this is the same guy as in the first quote at the top of this quote is it not?
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
So, a quote from someone who could not see that the first tower was collapsing heard sounds?
Another loud noise that was heard by someone who could not see the source of the sound. It would be quite common then to attribute such a sound to an 'explosion' even though he cannot say for sure that there was an explosion.
Another loud noise that was heard by someone who could not see the source of the sound. It would be quite common then to attribute such a sound to an 'explosion' even though he cannot say for sure that there was an explosion.
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
Looks like is not the same as is. 2/3rds of the way up describes pretty well the location of the collapse initiation floor. Yes , there was a lot of smoke and dust ejected when the top section came down.
Again, noises just at the time when the tower was beginning its collapse. Again why do these noises suggest only explosives?
Again, noises just at the time when the tower was beginning its collapse. Again why do these noises suggest only explosives?
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
",,,, and again the building filled with soot and dust"
So this is the collapse of the second tower filling another , nearby building with dust. Loud noises attributed to explosions with no particular reason to do so other than they are loud noises.
"where the fire was", Once again describing the initial collapse and once again just why does this justify the theory that there were explosives?
"where the fire was", Once again describing the initial collapse and once again just why does this justify the theory that there were explosives?
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
Ditto above, again
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
More "as if" .
More "as if" .
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
How poetic. Nice prose, nothing technical there at all. No suggestion of planted explosives.
Still nothing that actually suggests explosives over loud noises produced by a building in the process of collapsing.
Still nothing that actually suggests explosives over loud noises produced by a building in the process of collapsing.
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
Quite the eyewitness here. She is the only person that seems to believe that the two planes were right behind each other or that either plane might have been trying to veer away from the tower. Why believe her characterization of the sound as being a 'bomb'?
W.R. when actually seated in front of a NIST panel then chooses to not start his testimony off with the 'explosions' but instead to launch a tirade about the management of the maintenance of the towers.
W.R. also cannot actually say for certain that the first sound he heard was not the impact of the plane and the second the fireball in the elevators.
W.R. when actually seated in front of a NIST panel then chooses to not start his testimony off with the 'explosions' but instead to launch a tirade about the management of the maintenance of the towers.
W.R. also cannot actually say for certain that the first sound he heard was not the impact of the plane and the second the fireball in the elevators.
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
More loud noises!
What evidence did he have to base this speculation on?
What evidence did he have to base this speculation on?
"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
Sept 11 reports in which all rumours are reported as they come in. Not exactly proof of squat!
What 'reasons', what happened to this 'suspicious device'? What was it?
More sept 11 speculation and rumour in the confusion of the day.
What 'reasons', what happened to this 'suspicious device'? What was it?
More sept 11 speculation and rumour in the confusion of the day.
“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
A news reporter says it is "reminiscent" of something therefore it must be that rather than a metaphor. Why? Does Dan Rather have some qualifications to render such a definitive statement? No, he is a journalist and journalists are given to metaphor.
First she says the FF told her that #7 was coming down then changes that to he told her they were bringing it down. Just as likely he said it #7 was unstable and about to come down.
{Oops insert Silverstein's comment here}
Done to death. "pull it" is simply not a common phrase for what we saw happen to #7 , straight down. In the parlance of CD this would be a 'drop.'
First she says the FF told her that #7 was coming down then changes that to he told her they were bringing it down. Just as likely he said it #7 was unstable and about to come down.
{Oops insert Silverstein's comment here}
Done to death. "pull it" is simply not a common phrase for what we saw happen to #7 , straight down. In the parlance of CD this would be a 'drop.'
In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero (weeks after 9-11) also uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6:
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3
Which illustrates the use of 'pull' in this context in which they want a building to go a certain direction when it falls.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Jones is entitled to his opinion. I do not see the engineering and physics community lining up behind his analysis though.
Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow
September 20, 2001
english.people.com.cn
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Jones is entitled to his opinion. I do not see the engineering and physics community lining up behind his analysis though.
Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow
September 20, 2001
english.people.com.cn
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
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
Classic CT bafflegab. An expert gives an off-the-cuff remark on the day of the collapses and then later finds he was in error but because his first statement bolsters the CT arguement this is shown to be proof rather than the expert's sober second thought. Then the innuendo that he only got a contract because he towed the line rather than because he is qualified for the job.
QUOTE
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
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
Already adressed, he goes on to state that it was likely electrical explosions of the light fixtures.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 |
Already adressed, he goes on to state that it was likely electrical explosions of the light fixtures.
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
Key words, " originally had thought "
QUOTE
"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/
As I said before, just what is the collapse of the top section onto the lower section supposed to have sounded like? Why does a loud boom signify explosives only?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"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/ |
As I said before, just what is the collapse of the top section onto the lower section supposed to have sounded like? Why does a loud boom signify explosives only?
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
Key words "At first I thought "
QUOTE
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
...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
uh, this is the same guy as in the first quote at the top of this quote is it not?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 |
uh, this is the same guy as in the first quote at the top of this quote is it not?
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
So, a quote from someone who could not see that the first tower was collapsing heard sounds?
QUOTE
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
"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
Another loud noise that was heard by someone who could not see the source of the sound. It would be quite common then to attribute such a sound to an 'explosion' even though he cannot say for sure that there was an explosion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 |
Another loud noise that was heard by someone who could not see the source of the sound. It would be quite common then to attribute such a sound to an 'explosion' even though he cannot say for sure that there was an explosion.
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
Looks like is not the same as is. 2/3rds of the way up describes pretty well the location of the collapse initiation floor. Yes , there was a lot of smoke and dust ejected when the top section came down.
QUOTE
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
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
Again, noises just at the time when the tower was beginning its collapse. Again why do these noises suggest only explosives?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 |
Again, noises just at the time when the tower was beginning its collapse. Again why do these noises suggest only explosives?
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
",,,, and again the building filled with soot and dust"
So this is the collapse of the second tower filling another , nearby building with dust. Loud noises attributed to explosions with no particular reason to do so other than they are loud noises.
QUOTE
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
"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
"where the fire was", Once again describing the initial collapse and once again just why does this justify the theory that there were explosives?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 |
"where the fire was", Once again describing the initial collapse and once again just why does this justify the theory that there were explosives?
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
Ditto above, again
QUOTE
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
More "as if" .
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
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 |
More "as if" .
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
How poetic. Nice prose, nothing technical there at all. No suggestion of planted explosives.
QUOTE
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
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
Still nothing that actually suggests explosives over loud noises produced by a building in the process of collapsing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 |
Still nothing that actually suggests explosives over loud noises produced by a building in the process of collapsing.
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
Quite the eyewitness here. She is the only person that seems to believe that the two planes were right behind each other or that either plane might have been trying to veer away from the tower. Why believe her characterization of the sound as being a 'bomb'?
QUOTE
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
"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
W.R. when actually seated in front of a NIST panel then chooses to not start his testimony off with the 'explosions' but instead to launch a tirade about the management of the maintenance of the towers.
W.R. also cannot actually say for certain that the first sound he heard was not the impact of the plane and the second the fireball in the elevators.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 |
W.R. when actually seated in front of a NIST panel then chooses to not start his testimony off with the 'explosions' but instead to launch a tirade about the management of the maintenance of the towers.
W.R. also cannot actually say for certain that the first sound he heard was not the impact of the plane and the second the fireball in the elevators.
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
More loud noises!
QUOTE
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
[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
What evidence did he have to base this speculation on?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 |
What evidence did he have to base this speculation on?
"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
Sept 11 reports in which all rumours are reported as they come in. Not exactly proof of squat!
QUOTE
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
"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
What 'reasons', what happened to this 'suspicious device'? What was it?
More sept 11 speculation and rumour in the confusion of the day.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 |
What 'reasons', what happened to this 'suspicious device'? What was it?
More sept 11 speculation and rumour in the confusion of the day.
“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
A news reporter says it is "reminiscent" of something therefore it must be that rather than a metaphor. Why? Does Dan Rather have some qualifications to render such a definitive statement? No, he is a journalist and journalists are given to metaphor.
QUOTE
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
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
First she says the FF told her that #7 was coming down then changes that to he told her they were bringing it down. Just as likely he said it #7 was unstable and about to come down.
{Oops insert Silverstein's comment here}
Done to death. "pull it" is simply not a common phrase for what we saw happen to #7 , straight down. In the parlance of CD this would be a 'drop.'
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 |
First she says the FF told her that #7 was coming down then changes that to he told her they were bringing it down. Just as likely he said it #7 was unstable and about to come down.
{Oops insert Silverstein's comment here}
Done to death. "pull it" is simply not a common phrase for what we saw happen to #7 , straight down. In the parlance of CD this would be a 'drop.'
In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero (weeks after 9-11) also uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6:
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3
Which illustrates the use of 'pull' in this context in which they want a building to go a certain direction when it falls.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
QUOTE
"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
[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
Jones is entitled to his opinion. I do not see the engineering and physics community lining up behind his analysis though.
Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow
September 20, 2001
english.people.com.cn
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "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 |
Jones is entitled to his opinion. I do not see the engineering and physics community lining up behind his analysis though.
Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow
September 20, 2001
english.people.com.cn
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
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
Classic CT bafflegab. An expert gives an off-the-cuff remark on the day of the collapses and then later finds he was in error but because his first statement bolsters the CT arguement this is shown to be proof rather than the expert's sober second thought. Then the innuendo that he only got a contract because he towed the line rather than because he is qualified for the job.
How would these people behave under oath knowing a paper trail was available? It would be interesting.
Senator Graham was present along with head honcho Porter Goss at the morning of September 11 meeting with Attas chief cashier Pakistans ISI chief - another coincidence no doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.j...raham_video_wmv
Senator Graham was present along with head honcho Porter Goss at the morning of September 11 meeting with Attas chief cashier Pakistans ISI chief - another coincidence no doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.j...raham_video_wmv
QUOTE (brian+Dec 28 2005, 09:49 PM)
How would these people behave under oath knowing a paper trail was available? It would be interesting.
Senator Graham was present along with head honcho Porter Goss at the morning of September 11 meeting with Attas chief cashier Pakistans ISI chief - another coincidence no doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.j...raham_video_wmv
What did they know of the impending terrorist attacks? Good question. You are accepting then that planes hit the buildings and brought them down?
Senator Graham was present along with head honcho Porter Goss at the morning of September 11 meeting with Attas chief cashier Pakistans ISI chief - another coincidence no doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.j...raham_video_wmv
What did they know of the impending terrorist attacks? Good question. You are accepting then that planes hit the buildings and brought them down?
QUOTE (Mel+Dec 28 2005, 03:29 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 27 2005, 11:24 PM)
...I can't keep track of these idiots who think they're god's gift to science and comedy...
Me neither. I thought Schneibster might be gone for good, but alas, it turns out he is now back as 'Common Sense'. You need not worry about keeping track of him anymore...
.
hehehe. Careful with the 'cutsey' posts though, Mel. With inane posts such as that above, you risk being inescapably INCLUDED in the very ranks of those whom you would decry in such a clumsy and obviously invalid manner, heh? Ciao.
RC.
PS: BTW...I don't appreciate my words being misappropriated for use in low designs by undiscerning individuals, no matter WHO they may be. Please try harder to resist these low urges in future. RC.
.
That would make her knowledgeable in things concerning Russia and I would expect, truthful about topics concerning Russia.
It would not make her any more knowledgeable about structural engineering nor any less honest( in and of itself) about structural engineering.
That would make her knowledgeable in things concerning Russia and I would expect, truthful about topics concerning Russia.
It would not make her any more knowledgeable about structural engineering nor any less honest( in and of itself) about structural engineering.
Actually I read somewhere she couldn't even write a book about the subject without errors in facts. Like saying someone was in charge of something when they weren't even alive. No fact checking what so ever.
They're saying these clowns planned the largest murder in US history???
That would make her knowledgeable in things concerning Russia and I would expect, truthful about topics concerning Russia.
It would not make her any more knowledgeable about structural engineering nor any less honest( in and of itself) about structural engineering.
Actually I read somewhere she couldn't even write a book about the subject without errors in facts. Like saying someone was in charge of something when they weren't even alive. No fact checking what so ever.
They're saying these clowns planned the largest murder in US history???
Well now I never stated that I believe that the bunch of them belong where they are and , if correct, your description of Condi is revealing. It brings to mind that when a former prime Minister of Canada met with C.Rice she(the former P.M., Flora MacDonald IIRC) had to correct Rice on who at that time was the USA's largest trading partner. This would be something that a person who would become the Sec. of State should have already known but Rice thought it was Japan(again IIRC) and it was in fact Canada by a large margin.
At present , China is the largest trading partner but the trade is greatly one sided with US imports from China outstriping exports to China by a large margin.
I have long stated that I consider GWB a buffoon who is greatly out of his depth as the POTUS. Cheney is out for big business and would like nothing more than a business oligarchy running the USA. Rumsfeld is a great believer in his abilities, so much so that he does not notice that he is incompetant in the role as Sec. of Defense.
Yet the CT theory would have these people putting together the greatest, most secretive, treasonous, black op in the history of modern civilisation.
Hey, that ain't physics but neither is much that frater ever brings up.
Steve, I have been observing 'these guys' for a couple of years now.
No one needs a PH'd to understand the 'common sense' you are talking about.
{although the typical psyopts maneuver is to reply}...
"NO !!! You have NO Intelligence ... You just don't 'understand'...
Let's just confuse the issue with Science... and if 'That' doesn't work, Let's 'Baffle 'em with BS' " }
Show me, magicians...
Where is resistance taken into account in ANY of the previous mathematical calculations of KE (as opposed to PE) ???
Metamars?
Gordon?
YID ?
Aurthur?
Me neither. I thought Schneibster might be gone for good, but alas, it turns out he is now back as 'Common Sense'. You need not worry about keeping track of him anymore...
.
hehehe. Careful with the 'cutsey' posts though, Mel. With inane posts such as that above, you risk being inescapably INCLUDED in the very ranks of those whom you would decry in such a clumsy and obviously invalid manner, heh? Ciao.
RC.
PS: BTW...I don't appreciate my words being misappropriated for use in low designs by undiscerning individuals, no matter WHO they may be. Please try harder to resist these low urges in future. RC.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Dec 28 2005, 03:53 PM)
Sorry, gordon; but since GRAVITY acceleration is ALWAYS acting on every part of a building, it is technically 'FALLING' ALL THE TIME...hence the 'weight' force that all parts of a building are continually imparting on all Lower parts of that building, even though they are NOT 'moving' as such. In other words, since these parts are always falling, the USUAL INERTIA aspect is erroneous when talking of a building 'STARTING' to move from a 'standing start'...because there IS no 'standing start', but always a 'falling start' temporarily obstructed by the integrity of the building structure supporting it against CONSTANT gravitational ACCELERATION. I think what you are confusing here is HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT FROM A STANDING START FROM A TRULY NON-ACCELERATED STATIONARY POSITION...which isn't the case with DOWNWARD VERTICAL MOVEMENT under conditions of gravity scenarios. Hope this helps. Gotta run, busy elsewhere. Good luck.
RealityCheck.
No man. Bit more complicated than that.
If you instantaneously remove a storey, then as well as the upper section falling, the lower section would unwind its static load deflection and move upwards. In doing so it must overcome its own inertia.
Similarly when the collision occurs, the downward moving section must overcome this upward movement, if at that point in time it was still continuing, before then instigating a downward movement
Your point about gravity always acting on the building is true but at equilibrium it is always opposed by the force, (through the Youngs modulus and stress/strain equations) occasioned by the static load deflection.
Force = E*(deformation/original length)*csa
E= youngs modulus
csa= cross sectional area
E, original length and csa are constants
therefore Force is directly proportional to deformation(within the elastic limit)
A force is that which changes, OR TENDS TO CHANGE, a bodies state of rest or motion.
Equilibrium has no unbalanced force and therefore no acceleration.
No acceleration and original velocity of zero, still means zero, whatever direction you are tending to travel.
On the other stuff check out a stress strain curve from a standard test.
You will find a proportional stress/strain relationship exhibited by a straight line on the graph from zero load and zero deflection up to the elastic limit. From that point and with additional load the graph becomes a bit more complex with yield, work hardening, Ultimate Stress, continued deformation and finally failure.
We can simplify this section of the graph by assuming a constant load would continue the deflection. It wouldn't, because the Ultimate load is bigger than the load at the elastic limit with steel, but it will give us a minimum value (in fact a large underestimation for small deflections) for the strain energy which can be absorbed by the plastic deformation
Strain energy would be the area under the graph, and would be force * distance
Hence the formula I gave before.
In tension the elongation can reach 40% of the original length
As I said in my earlier post it is unlikely that the columns would fail in compression, but more likely through buckling or shear.
But it is difficult to envisage a mechanism or scenario whereby the load necessary to cause plastic deformation would be lower than the elastic limit load, especially in the incremental time immediately after the elastic limit is reached.
It is also difficult to imagine a scenario where that necessary load would be reduced to zero or close to zero, at any point in time after collision, in order to allow further "free-falls" to again build up the velocity and KE
On the BZ stuff, I didn't know it existed until recently and when I did see it, I dismissed it as having no initiation mechanism worth considering and ignoring the real behaviour of the steel. It was only recently that I heard that these buildings were made from steel. Previously, due to a BBC graphic (which is still around and causing confusion as evidenced by this thread) I was under the impression that the towers were built from reinforced concrete. High sulphur cement, concrete cancer, corrosion occasioned spalling, were some of the ideas which I had at the back of my mind - things that I am not totally conversant with. But I say at the back of my mind because I didn't have any reason to look any deeper.
But when I learned about the core and the column construction things began to be a whole lot clearer and a whole lot murkier.
Why bother with BZ? The times derived from these ideas for the collapse duration are meaningless because their model, where the steelwork exhibited no ability to absorb strain energy, would never have stood up in the first place.
Gordon.
.
I understand what you're saying, but the two forces are in no way comparable. And you were originally talking of 'inertia' in relation to 'downward' GRAVITY-ACCELERATED movement of the upper parts, and NOT 'upward' MOLECULAR elastic-relaxation of the lower parts. But in any case, the 'relaxation' upwards you speak of is LIMITED in duration, strength and linear extension in distance upwards; whereas the gravity accelerated 'falling' is RELENTLESS and EVER-cumulative as to duration, strength and linear extension downwards (all the way to the ground, as long as 'accelerated falling' WEIGHT/MOMENTUM exceeds resistance at each 'floor obstruction'....which resistance is COMPARATIVELY limited, static and non-cumulative in effect...and would immediately add to the downwards-mass 'fall' impulses, as these OVERWHELMED 'obstruction' masses THEMSELVES are ALSO being relentlessly ACCELERATED by gravity). Anyhow, that's really all the time I have for this. I'll leave you to figure it out as best you can. Good luck and good thinking, gordon.
RC.
.
RealityCheck.
No man. Bit more complicated than that.
If you instantaneously remove a storey, then as well as the upper section falling, the lower section would unwind its static load deflection and move upwards. In doing so it must overcome its own inertia.
Similarly when the collision occurs, the downward moving section must overcome this upward movement, if at that point in time it was still continuing, before then instigating a downward movement
Your point about gravity always acting on the building is true but at equilibrium it is always opposed by the force, (through the Youngs modulus and stress/strain equations) occasioned by the static load deflection.
Force = E*(deformation/original length)*csa
E= youngs modulus
csa= cross sectional area
E, original length and csa are constants
therefore Force is directly proportional to deformation(within the elastic limit)
A force is that which changes, OR TENDS TO CHANGE, a bodies state of rest or motion.
Equilibrium has no unbalanced force and therefore no acceleration.
No acceleration and original velocity of zero, still means zero, whatever direction you are tending to travel.
On the other stuff check out a stress strain curve from a standard test.
You will find a proportional stress/strain relationship exhibited by a straight line on the graph from zero load and zero deflection up to the elastic limit. From that point and with additional load the graph becomes a bit more complex with yield, work hardening, Ultimate Stress, continued deformation and finally failure.
We can simplify this section of the graph by assuming a constant load would continue the deflection. It wouldn't, because the Ultimate load is bigger than the load at the elastic limit with steel, but it will give us a minimum value (in fact a large underestimation for small deflections) for the strain energy which can be absorbed by the plastic deformation
Strain energy would be the area under the graph, and would be force * distance
Hence the formula I gave before.
In tension the elongation can reach 40% of the original length
As I said in my earlier post it is unlikely that the columns would fail in compression, but more likely through buckling or shear.
But it is difficult to envisage a mechanism or scenario whereby the load necessary to cause plastic deformation would be lower than the elastic limit load, especially in the incremental time immediately after the elastic limit is reached.
It is also difficult to imagine a scenario where that necessary load would be reduced to zero or close to zero, at any point in time after collision, in order to allow further "free-falls" to again build up the velocity and KE
On the BZ stuff, I didn't know it existed until recently and when I did see it, I dismissed it as having no initiation mechanism worth considering and ignoring the real behaviour of the steel. It was only recently that I heard that these buildings were made from steel. Previously, due to a BBC graphic (which is still around and causing confusion as evidenced by this thread) I was under the impression that the towers were built from reinforced concrete. High sulphur cement, concrete cancer, corrosion occasioned spalling, were some of the ideas which I had at the back of my mind - things that I am not totally conversant with. But I say at the back of my mind because I didn't have any reason to look any deeper.
But when I learned about the core and the column construction things began to be a whole lot clearer and a whole lot murkier.
Why bother with BZ? The times derived from these ideas for the collapse duration are meaningless because their model, where the steelwork exhibited no ability to absorb strain energy, would never have stood up in the first place.
Gordon.
.
I understand what you're saying, but the two forces are in no way comparable. And you were originally talking of 'inertia' in relation to 'downward' GRAVITY-ACCELERATED movement of the upper parts, and NOT 'upward' MOLECULAR elastic-relaxation of the lower parts. But in any case, the 'relaxation' upwards you speak of is LIMITED in duration, strength and linear extension in distance upwards; whereas the gravity accelerated 'falling' is RELENTLESS and EVER-cumulative as to duration, strength and linear extension downwards (all the way to the ground, as long as 'accelerated falling' WEIGHT/MOMENTUM exceeds resistance at each 'floor obstruction'....which resistance is COMPARATIVELY limited, static and non-cumulative in effect...and would immediately add to the downwards-mass 'fall' impulses, as these OVERWHELMED 'obstruction' masses THEMSELVES are ALSO being relentlessly ACCELERATED by gravity). Anyhow, that's really all the time I have for this. I'll leave you to figure it out as best you can. Good luck and good thinking, gordon.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 28 2005, 11:09 AM)
Synaptically challenged people like Steve shouldn't try to wrap that ground beef he calls a brain around something so complex as a 110 story office building collapse. That's why the big boys use computer models which are the only means to take most of the factors into account. Note Steve's only response is attack. Not much unlike the morons in the white house. Yeah, Jesus would do exactly what Steve is doing. Pretending to be an expert in structural engineering. I think it's in the bible somewhere... I on the other hand know I'm not a structural engineer but I also don't know of any structural engineers who bought this non-sense. I unlike Steve leave it to the people who should know. People who went to school for this. That's the HONEST thing to do. Because NOBODY has even ONE shred of evidence BUSH is involved yet they yap endlessly on his guilt. Even if the towers WERE blown up (No evidence for it yet) it could have been a home grown terrorist like Mcveigh. So don't talk to me about truth and honesty. You have 0
Your credibility has now fallen faster than the towers themselves. Heh!
Steve's credibility in real time ->
It's ironic that schneibster would use the term synaptic. Clearly, someone one who is exhibiting a multiple personality disorder, on a public forum, before thousands of readers, should be on medication. These drugs effect the functioning of the brain at the synaptic level. Coincidence or freudian slip?
The "big boys" with big computers. Do you mean companies like "Diebold" whose CEO was a "Pioneer" level campaign funder and staunch supporter of the bush candidacy and re-election efforts? The non-open source code driven voting machines, that americans are forced to take on good faith are actually recording their votes honestly. No possible conflict of interest here. You help me win, I give you the national (no-bid) contract. What's wrong with that? "The business of america is business". Right? This old slogan is very auspicious, in the light of the present; wouldn't you say? The guys writing the simulation/modeling software, receive a paycheck? And that paycheck comes from? Under these conditions the events will always play out the way they're supposed to. What kind of crap are you peddling here schneibster. The game is rigged! Loyalty will get you a top FEMA gig; honesty, an FBI file.
AMBIGUITY: (1) an expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context.
(2) unclearness by virtue of having more than one meaning
"Not much unlike the morons in the white house". Could you slip one more negation in their. It's only 95% obfuscated. Having encountered your tortured political views in previous schneibster posts there's still 5% of intent left in the sentence. If you really had a problem with bush you would get to the freakin point--Like the morons in the white house. Instead you choose to "yap" in the schneibster shadow speak.
It's written in the bible that Jesus would pretend to be an expert in structural engineering and because you didn't do like wise, you know how real engineers feel about 911 controversies. I'll just let that one speak for itself.
People who know, went to school and therefore are honest. OK..? People in the bush administration went to school. Condi's got a Phd in russian studies! That should make her honest by your logic.
As a secular humanist, I am still offended by the cheap character assassination of Jesus. The qualitities of his teachings deserve respect; the rest of the religious dogma, you can keep. Hey, he was a proto-hippie-socialist, who would throw the neo-cons to the curb. Unfortunately, nothing stands before PNACs' grand, global vision. The P in PNAC also stands for Pontius Pilot. He's ready and waiting to wash his hands should the circumstances dictate it. I'd be disturbed in the same way if you substituted: Einstein, Lennon, Gandhi, King.... May you soon visit an airport as "chuckles" real soon.
Your credibility has now fallen faster than the towers themselves. Heh!
Steve's credibility in real time ->
It's ironic that schneibster would use the term synaptic. Clearly, someone one who is exhibiting a multiple personality disorder, on a public forum, before thousands of readers, should be on medication. These drugs effect the functioning of the brain at the synaptic level. Coincidence or freudian slip?
The "big boys" with big computers. Do you mean companies like "Diebold" whose CEO was a "Pioneer" level campaign funder and staunch supporter of the bush candidacy and re-election efforts? The non-open source code driven voting machines, that americans are forced to take on good faith are actually recording their votes honestly. No possible conflict of interest here. You help me win, I give you the national (no-bid) contract. What's wrong with that? "The business of america is business". Right? This old slogan is very auspicious, in the light of the present; wouldn't you say? The guys writing the simulation/modeling software, receive a paycheck? And that paycheck comes from? Under these conditions the events will always play out the way they're supposed to. What kind of crap are you peddling here schneibster. The game is rigged! Loyalty will get you a top FEMA gig; honesty, an FBI file.
AMBIGUITY: (1) an expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context.
(2) unclearness by virtue of having more than one meaning
"Not much unlike the morons in the white house". Could you slip one more negation in their. It's only 95% obfuscated. Having encountered your tortured political views in previous schneibster posts there's still 5% of intent left in the sentence. If you really had a problem with bush you would get to the freakin point--Like the morons in the white house. Instead you choose to "yap" in the schneibster shadow speak.
It's written in the bible that Jesus would pretend to be an expert in structural engineering and because you didn't do like wise, you know how real engineers feel about 911 controversies. I'll just let that one speak for itself.
People who know, went to school and therefore are honest. OK..? People in the bush administration went to school. Condi's got a Phd in russian studies! That should make her honest by your logic.
As a secular humanist, I am still offended by the cheap character assassination of Jesus. The qualitities of his teachings deserve respect; the rest of the religious dogma, you can keep. Hey, he was a proto-hippie-socialist, who would throw the neo-cons to the curb. Unfortunately, nothing stands before PNACs' grand, global vision. The P in PNAC also stands for Pontius Pilot. He's ready and waiting to wash his hands should the circumstances dictate it. I'd be disturbed in the same way if you substituted: Einstein, Lennon, Gandhi, King.... May you soon visit an airport as "chuckles" real soon.
QUOTE
People who know, went to school and therefore are honest. OK... People in the bush administration went to school. Condi's got a Phd in russian studies! That should make her honest.
That would make her knowledgeable in things concerning Russia and I would expect, truthful about topics concerning Russia.
It would not make her any more knowledgeable about structural engineering nor any less honest( in and of itself) about structural engineering.
I see Steve e-mailed his daddy after the pimp like back handed bitch slapping he received. No matter. The more the merrier..
"It's ironic that schneibster would use the term synaptic. Clearly, someone one who is exhibiting a multiple personality disorder, on this forum, before thousands of readers, should be be on his medication. These drugs effect the functioning of the brain at the synaptic level. Coincidence or freudian slip."
Tell me Karnac the Magnificent, since you know all... What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
"Do you mean companies like "Diebold" whose CEO was a "Pioneer" level campaign funder and staunch supporter of the bush candidacy and re-election efforts"
NOW YOUR TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING WITH EVIDENCE! I think were getting somewhere. Places with computer voting machines had the opposite pattern from places without. Why don't you turn your attention to something like that. You don't need everyone and their mother in on that one. Help "blackboxvoting" instead of Rove.
""Not much unlike the morons in the white house. Could you slip one more negation in their. It's only 95% obfuscated. Having encountered your tortured political views in previous schneibster posts there's still 5% of intent left in the sentence. If you really had a problem with bush you get to the freakin point--Like the morons in the white house. Instead you choose to "yap" in the schneibster shadow lands."
Have the common decency to get your own insults and don't use mine. The "Yap" is already taken. If you like I'll sell you some. Use paypal please.
Another "Your either with me or against me" post. How intellectually vacuous. I expect people who can put together sentences to also be coherent. Am I asking to much?
"It's written in the bible that Jesus would pretend to be an expert in structural engineering and because you didn't do like wise, you know how real engineers feel about 911 controversies. I'll just let that speak for it self."
Actually what I said was, and I paraphrase: "Listen you self richeous f**k, you evoke images of the bible while you spew lies from 9/11 conspiracy sites. You KNOW something which no one can KNOW because not one shred of evidence exist. You aren't even a structural engineer so how the f**k can you be so sure?" That's more my point.
"People who know, went to school and therefore are honest. OK... People in the bush administration went to school. Condi's got a Phd in russian studies! That should make her honest. "
So now Bush is a structural engineer? HAHAHAHA! Condi build a high-rise office building? Heh! What a tool...
No, what YOU'RE saying is everyone in the WORLD who went to structural engineers school is not only dishonest but complicit in the murder of 3000 people! Because NONE are asking to investigate something which you layman believe is so obvious!
"It's ironic that schneibster would use the term synaptic. Clearly, someone one who is exhibiting a multiple personality disorder, on this forum, before thousands of readers, should be be on his medication. These drugs effect the functioning of the brain at the synaptic level. Coincidence or freudian slip."
Tell me Karnac the Magnificent, since you know all... What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
"Do you mean companies like "Diebold" whose CEO was a "Pioneer" level campaign funder and staunch supporter of the bush candidacy and re-election efforts"
NOW YOUR TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING WITH EVIDENCE! I think were getting somewhere. Places with computer voting machines had the opposite pattern from places without. Why don't you turn your attention to something like that. You don't need everyone and their mother in on that one. Help "blackboxvoting" instead of Rove.
""Not much unlike the morons in the white house. Could you slip one more negation in their. It's only 95% obfuscated. Having encountered your tortured political views in previous schneibster posts there's still 5% of intent left in the sentence. If you really had a problem with bush you get to the freakin point--Like the morons in the white house. Instead you choose to "yap" in the schneibster shadow lands."
Have the common decency to get your own insults and don't use mine. The "Yap" is already taken. If you like I'll sell you some. Use paypal please.
Another "Your either with me or against me" post. How intellectually vacuous. I expect people who can put together sentences to also be coherent. Am I asking to much?
"It's written in the bible that Jesus would pretend to be an expert in structural engineering and because you didn't do like wise, you know how real engineers feel about 911 controversies. I'll just let that speak for it self."
Actually what I said was, and I paraphrase: "Listen you self richeous f**k, you evoke images of the bible while you spew lies from 9/11 conspiracy sites. You KNOW something which no one can KNOW because not one shred of evidence exist. You aren't even a structural engineer so how the f**k can you be so sure?" That's more my point.
"People who know, went to school and therefore are honest. OK... People in the bush administration went to school. Condi's got a Phd in russian studies! That should make her honest. "
So now Bush is a structural engineer? HAHAHAHA! Condi build a high-rise office building? Heh! What a tool...
No, what YOU'RE saying is everyone in the WORLD who went to structural engineers school is not only dishonest but complicit in the murder of 3000 people! Because NONE are asking to investigate something which you layman believe is so obvious!
Reality check said,
I understand what you're saying, but the two forces are in no way comparable.
I'm sorry but you don't understand what I'm saying. The two forces are equal and opposite, hence equilibrium. Any other set up would have an unbalanced force and therefore acceleration. Since the building was stationary we cannot assume anything else other than equal and opposite forces.
At any point in the structure at equilibrium the downward force will be m*g and the upward force will be X*def where X is a constant and m*g=X*def.
And you were originally talking of 'inertia' in relation to 'downward' GRAVITY-ACCELERATED movement of the upper parts, and NOT 'upward' MOLECULAR elastic-relaxation of the lower parts.
that is correct and since both exist, both should be considered.
as long as 'accelerated falling' WEIGHT/MOMENTUM exceeds resistance at each 'floor obstruction'....
"Each floor obstruction" is a misnomer, because there would be no interruption in the deceleration which the falling section must undergo in order to exert a force on the lower section. I said in my last post that I could not envisage any situation or scenario where that necessary load would be reduced to zero or close to zero, at any point in time after collision, in order to allow further "free-falls" to again build up the velocity and KE. I'm not talking floors here, but rather storeys, because the vertical strength of the building was in the vertical columns and not in the floors. It is this strength which must be continually overcome.
How would it be possible for the upper section to achieve a free fall after its first impact ? Over what distance and how was this resistance-free distance achieved?
I would also argue with your point that the falling mass would be cumulative. There is little doubt that the total falling mass would increase, but this would not be in a contiguous, homogeneous mass and would thus lose directed energy, rather than gain.
Also the falling section would be comprised of lighter section steelwork than the lower section and would thus suffer proportionately worse damage than the lower section upon impact.
Similarly your assertion that the resistance is static. Since force is directly proportional to deformation there must be movement, and hence not static.
Also since the falling mass must exert a force sufficient to overcome the strain energy capacity of the columns, it must suffer a deceleration, and this cannot be instantaneous but rather would take place over the length of the deformation caused. Again distances and accelerations indicate movement not static.
G
I understand what you're saying, but the two forces are in no way comparable.
I'm sorry but you don't understand what I'm saying. The two forces are equal and opposite, hence equilibrium. Any other set up would have an unbalanced force and therefore acceleration. Since the building was stationary we cannot assume anything else other than equal and opposite forces.
At any point in the structure at equilibrium the downward force will be m*g and the upward force will be X*def where X is a constant and m*g=X*def.
And you were originally talking of 'inertia' in relation to 'downward' GRAVITY-ACCELERATED movement of the upper parts, and NOT 'upward' MOLECULAR elastic-relaxation of the lower parts.
that is correct and since both exist, both should be considered.
as long as 'accelerated falling' WEIGHT/MOMENTUM exceeds resistance at each 'floor obstruction'....
"Each floor obstruction" is a misnomer, because there would be no interruption in the deceleration which the falling section must undergo in order to exert a force on the lower section. I said in my last post that I could not envisage any situation or scenario where that necessary load would be reduced to zero or close to zero, at any point in time after collision, in order to allow further "free-falls" to again build up the velocity and KE. I'm not talking floors here, but rather storeys, because the vertical strength of the building was in the vertical columns and not in the floors. It is this strength which must be continually overcome.
How would it be possible for the upper section to achieve a free fall after its first impact ? Over what distance and how was this resistance-free distance achieved?
I would also argue with your point that the falling mass would be cumulative. There is little doubt that the total falling mass would increase, but this would not be in a contiguous, homogeneous mass and would thus lose directed energy, rather than gain.
Also the falling section would be comprised of lighter section steelwork than the lower section and would thus suffer proportionately worse damage than the lower section upon impact.
Similarly your assertion that the resistance is static. Since force is directly proportional to deformation there must be movement, and hence not static.
Also since the falling mass must exert a force sufficient to overcome the strain energy capacity of the columns, it must suffer a deceleration, and this cannot be instantaneous but rather would take place over the length of the deformation caused. Again distances and accelerations indicate movement not static.
G
QUOTE (yesitdid+Dec 28 2005, 10:42 PM)
QUOTE
People who know, went to school and therefore are honest. OK... People in the bush administration went to school. Condi's got a Phd in russian studies! That should make her honest.
That would make her knowledgeable in things concerning Russia and I would expect, truthful about topics concerning Russia.
It would not make her any more knowledgeable about structural engineering nor any less honest( in and of itself) about structural engineering.
Actually I read somewhere she couldn't even write a book about the subject without errors in facts. Like saying someone was in charge of something when they weren't even alive. No fact checking what so ever.
They're saying these clowns planned the largest murder in US history???
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 28 2005, 11:23 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Dec 28 2005, 10:42 PM)
QUOTE
People who know, went to school and therefore are honest. OK... People in the bush administration went to school. Condi's got a Phd in russian studies! That should make her honest.
That would make her knowledgeable in things concerning Russia and I would expect, truthful about topics concerning Russia.
It would not make her any more knowledgeable about structural engineering nor any less honest( in and of itself) about structural engineering.
Actually I read somewhere she couldn't even write a book about the subject without errors in facts. Like saying someone was in charge of something when they weren't even alive. No fact checking what so ever.
They're saying these clowns planned the largest murder in US history???
Well now I never stated that I believe that the bunch of them belong where they are and , if correct, your description of Condi is revealing. It brings to mind that when a former prime Minister of Canada met with C.Rice she(the former P.M., Flora MacDonald IIRC) had to correct Rice on who at that time was the USA's largest trading partner. This would be something that a person who would become the Sec. of State should have already known but Rice thought it was Japan(again IIRC) and it was in fact Canada by a large margin.
At present , China is the largest trading partner but the trade is greatly one sided with US imports from China outstriping exports to China by a large margin.
I have long stated that I consider GWB a buffoon who is greatly out of his depth as the POTUS. Cheney is out for big business and would like nothing more than a business oligarchy running the USA. Rumsfeld is a great believer in his abilities, so much so that he does not notice that he is incompetant in the role as Sec. of Defense.
Yet the CT theory would have these people putting together the greatest, most secretive, treasonous, black op in the history of modern civilisation.
Hey, that ain't physics but neither is much that frater ever brings up.
QUOTE (gordon+Dec 28 2005, 11:23 PM)
Reality check said,
I understand what you're saying, but the two forces are in no way comparable.
I'm sorry but you don't understand what I'm saying. The two forces are equal and opposite, hence equilibrium. Any other set up would have an unbalanced force and therefore acceleration. Since the building was stationary we cannot assume anything else other than equal and opposite forces.
At any point in the structure at equilibrium the downward force will be m*g and the upward force will be X*def where X is a constant and m*g=X*def.
And you were originally talking of 'inertia' in relation to 'downward' GRAVITY-ACCELERATED movement of the upper parts, and NOT 'upward' MOLECULAR elastic-relaxation of the lower parts.
that is correct and since both exist, both should be considered.
as long as 'accelerated falling' WEIGHT/MOMENTUM exceeds resistance at each 'floor obstruction'....
"Each floor obstruction" is a misnomer, because there would be no interruption in the deceleration which the falling section must undergo in order to exert a force on the lower section. I said in my last post that I could not envisage any situation or scenario where that necessary load would be reduced to zero or close to zero, at any point in time after collision, in order to allow further "free-falls" to again build up the velocity and KE. I'm not talking floors here, but rather storeys, because the vertical strength of the building was in the vertical columns and not in the floors. It is this strength which must be continually overcome.
How would it be possible for the upper section to achieve a free fall after its first impact ? Over what distance and how was this resistance-free distance achieved?
I would also argue with your point that the falling mass would be cumulative. There is little doubt that the total falling mass would increase, but this would not be in a contiguous, homogeneous mass and would thus lose directed energy, rather than gain.
Also the falling section would be comprised of lighter section steelwork than the lower section and would thus suffer proportionately worse damage than the lower section upon impact.
Similarly your assertion that the resistance is static. Since force is directly proportional to deformation there must be movement, and hence not static.
Also since the falling mass must exert a force sufficient to overcome the strain energy capacity of the columns, it must suffer a deceleration, and this cannot be instantaneous but rather would take place over the length of the deformation caused. Again distances and accelerations indicate movement not static.
G
.
Hi gordon.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here, mate. I was not commenting on your assertions regarding 'free-fall' speed of collapse etc etc...I merely limited my comments to pointing out that the so-called 'inertia' supposedly to be 'overcome' by a mass under constant 'gravitational acceleration' IS NOT THERE in the sense you spoke of it in the post to which I replied...not like such 'inertia' WOULD be in NON-GRAVITY-ACCELERATED frames...such as in HORIZONTAL movement from a standing start. Technically, there IS no such thing as a 'standing start' for a mass that is constatly being accelerated by gravity; UNLESS of course Earth's gravitational ACELLERATION VALUE WAS TO INCREASE SUDDENLY from 1.0 g to, let's say, 1.5 g...in which case there WOULD be 'inertial resistance' to the SUDDEN INCREASE in acceleration, hehehe. That's all, gordon...I have neither the time nor the inclination to involve myself in "free-fall collapse times" etc. etc. discussions...as these have already been covered earlier in this thread. You may wish to read the physics already posted regarding your area of interest, and pose questions of the relevant posters if you feel something that you are interested in has not been covered to your satisfaction. Good luck.
RC.
.
I understand what you're saying, but the two forces are in no way comparable.
I'm sorry but you don't understand what I'm saying. The two forces are equal and opposite, hence equilibrium. Any other set up would have an unbalanced force and therefore acceleration. Since the building was stationary we cannot assume anything else other than equal and opposite forces.
At any point in the structure at equilibrium the downward force will be m*g and the upward force will be X*def where X is a constant and m*g=X*def.
And you were originally talking of 'inertia' in relation to 'downward' GRAVITY-ACCELERATED movement of the upper parts, and NOT 'upward' MOLECULAR elastic-relaxation of the lower parts.
that is correct and since both exist, both should be considered.
as long as 'accelerated falling' WEIGHT/MOMENTUM exceeds resistance at each 'floor obstruction'....
"Each floor obstruction" is a misnomer, because there would be no interruption in the deceleration which the falling section must undergo in order to exert a force on the lower section. I said in my last post that I could not envisage any situation or scenario where that necessary load would be reduced to zero or close to zero, at any point in time after collision, in order to allow further "free-falls" to again build up the velocity and KE. I'm not talking floors here, but rather storeys, because the vertical strength of the building was in the vertical columns and not in the floors. It is this strength which must be continually overcome.
How would it be possible for the upper section to achieve a free fall after its first impact ? Over what distance and how was this resistance-free distance achieved?
I would also argue with your point that the falling mass would be cumulative. There is little doubt that the total falling mass would increase, but this would not be in a contiguous, homogeneous mass and would thus lose directed energy, rather than gain.
Also the falling section would be comprised of lighter section steelwork than the lower section and would thus suffer proportionately worse damage than the lower section upon impact.
Similarly your assertion that the resistance is static. Since force is directly proportional to deformation there must be movement, and hence not static.
Also since the falling mass must exert a force sufficient to overcome the strain energy capacity of the columns, it must suffer a deceleration, and this cannot be instantaneous but rather would take place over the length of the deformation caused. Again distances and accelerations indicate movement not static.
G
.
Hi gordon.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here, mate. I was not commenting on your assertions regarding 'free-fall' speed of collapse etc etc...I merely limited my comments to pointing out that the so-called 'inertia' supposedly to be 'overcome' by a mass under constant 'gravitational acceleration' IS NOT THERE in the sense you spoke of it in the post to which I replied...not like such 'inertia' WOULD be in NON-GRAVITY-ACCELERATED frames...such as in HORIZONTAL movement from a standing start. Technically, there IS no such thing as a 'standing start' for a mass that is constatly being accelerated by gravity; UNLESS of course Earth's gravitational ACELLERATION VALUE WAS TO INCREASE SUDDENLY from 1.0 g to, let's say, 1.5 g...in which case there WOULD be 'inertial resistance' to the SUDDEN INCREASE in acceleration, hehehe. That's all, gordon...I have neither the time nor the inclination to involve myself in "free-fall collapse times" etc. etc. discussions...as these have already been covered earlier in this thread. You may wish to read the physics already posted regarding your area of interest, and pose questions of the relevant posters if you feel something that you are interested in has not been covered to your satisfaction. Good luck.
RC.
.
Arthur, common sense and reality check, read this breif analysis. Then after you've realized what total idiots you've been concerning the truth and the facts, put another post on this board and say, "I'm sorry" and we'll forgive you.
Or if you can't do that then see if you can poke any holes in this so you can save your reputations...
There is no wiggle room on the laws of physics. For the towers to fall at that rate there had to be NO resistance from each of the floors encountered on the way to the ground.
Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not cannot pass through a structure made of concrete and steel at the same rate as it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).
The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is clear evidence that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.
Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors. [Something in the way delays the passage.]
The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition). http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/proof.htm
Some people trying to use "common sense" without a knowledge of the laws of physics suppose that the addition of one floor after another would make the towers fall faster and faster. An elementary principle of masses falling through space was demonstrated at the Leaning Tower of Pisa nearly 500 years ago. The larger mass does NOT accelerate through space faster than a lighter, more dense mass. It will, however, cause the shredding force because of the connection between the slab and the outer wall.
Or if you can't do that then see if you can poke any holes in this so you can save your reputations...
There is no wiggle room on the laws of physics. For the towers to fall at that rate there had to be NO resistance from each of the floors encountered on the way to the ground.
Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not cannot pass through a structure made of concrete and steel at the same rate as it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).
The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is clear evidence that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.
Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors. [Something in the way delays the passage.]
The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition). http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/proof.htm
Some people trying to use "common sense" without a knowledge of the laws of physics suppose that the addition of one floor after another would make the towers fall faster and faster. An elementary principle of masses falling through space was demonstrated at the Leaning Tower of Pisa nearly 500 years ago. The larger mass does NOT accelerate through space faster than a lighter, more dense mass. It will, however, cause the shredding force because of the connection between the slab and the outer wall.
I'm going to say this so even a two year old can understand.
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What you want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter. Heh!
Of course you guys have built your whole life around this fantasy so I don't expect you to understand. You'll just point to another one of Rove's web sites as "Proof". Poof you're being used.
And while you live in LALA land we know for a fact Bush is spying on Americans and you do nothing. Don't you see what they're doing!!!
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What you want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter. Heh!
Of course you guys have built your whole life around this fantasy so I don't expect you to understand. You'll just point to another one of Rove's web sites as "Proof". Poof you're being used.
And while you live in LALA land we know for a fact Bush is spying on Americans and you do nothing. Don't you see what they're doing!!!
Heh...
Seems everyone is in the Christmas spirit, (apart from The Schneibster who just can't seem to keep the insults out of ANY character he plays).
Nice Attempt, Schneibster. Maybe when you 'alter personalities', you could try to ALTER your personality, (or at least disguise it better than you are doing).
Quote: by Adoucette ---
Arthur, 'you people' always want to skip the intermediary step.
Prior to this 'magical mythical drop' through 12' of thin air, you need some mechanism to remove ALL structural integrity (Resistance) from ALL (or at least... according to the Bizarro-Zoo Theory, the majority of ALL columns on that one level.
According to BZ, this includes the MAJORITY of all Massive Core Columns As Well As the MAJORITY of all Perimeter Columns... AT THE SAME INSTANT.
This can not happen in the REAL WORLD of physics & engineering {apart from CD} - (otherwise, it would be a well-understood and defined phenomena).
You dare to (and think you are capable of) explaining what 'your' NIST 'Engineers' refuse to DEFINE?
Hey, ah-dt {?} admitted he was 'working on the project', and THESE are the type of 'engineers' you wish to place unfailing trust in !! ???
I think this is the second time I've offered you the Brookyln Bridge (at a discount). Better get in quick. The price of the third offer is always higher than the previous 2...
Of Course, if you choose to defend the 'official story', you'll be out there 'on the limb' yourself, so don't expect them to back you up.
'YOU GUYS' are bravely entering areas of civil-engineering, well beyond your own 'expertise' - (as you all admit).
Yet you state you believe what the 'engineers' from NIST (FEMA, etc) have 'told you' regarding the mechanisms of 'collapse'.
When will you wake up to Reality and realize that NIST has now become dependant upon YOU to support their theory? They offer YOU NO empirical NOR forensic evidence (ALL of which points in the opposite direction to what you are attempting to uphold)
NIST has FAILED it's #1 Objective, which was to EXPLAIN this Magical, Mystical Engineering Phenomena !!!
They DEPEND upon YOU (although you readily admit that you have no structural engineering experience or expertise in this area), to 'provide' answers.
Heh...
Show me in the latest 'final-draft-almost-finished' report where they EXPLAIN this phenomena.
Where is it 'Modeled' in their super-duper computer graphics?
Hey, you have access to everything I do (and possibly more)... Show Me - WHERE does NIST model the collapse?
Seems everyone is in the Christmas spirit, (apart from The Schneibster who just can't seem to keep the insults out of ANY character he plays).
Nice Attempt, Schneibster. Maybe when you 'alter personalities', you could try to ALTER your personality, (or at least disguise it better than you are doing).
Quote: by Adoucette ---
QUOTE
You are claiming that the building is SO strong, that if you drop 19 stories of it 10 ft onto the bottom section, that it would take it just fine and that the deformation would be nearly impossible to measure, i.e a half a millimeter.
Arthur, 'you people' always want to skip the intermediary step.
Prior to this 'magical mythical drop' through 12' of thin air, you need some mechanism to remove ALL structural integrity (Resistance) from ALL (or at least... according to the Bizarro-Zoo Theory, the majority of ALL columns on that one level.
According to BZ, this includes the MAJORITY of all Massive Core Columns As Well As the MAJORITY of all Perimeter Columns... AT THE SAME INSTANT.
This can not happen in the REAL WORLD of physics & engineering {apart from CD} - (otherwise, it would be a well-understood and defined phenomena).
You dare to (and think you are capable of) explaining what 'your' NIST 'Engineers' refuse to DEFINE?
Hey, ah-dt {?} admitted he was 'working on the project', and THESE are the type of 'engineers' you wish to place unfailing trust in !! ???
I think this is the second time I've offered you the Brookyln Bridge (at a discount). Better get in quick. The price of the third offer is always higher than the previous 2...
Of Course, if you choose to defend the 'official story', you'll be out there 'on the limb' yourself, so don't expect them to back you up.
'YOU GUYS' are bravely entering areas of civil-engineering, well beyond your own 'expertise' - (as you all admit).
Yet you state you believe what the 'engineers' from NIST (FEMA, etc) have 'told you' regarding the mechanisms of 'collapse'.
When will you wake up to Reality and realize that NIST has now become dependant upon YOU to support their theory? They offer YOU NO empirical NOR forensic evidence (ALL of which points in the opposite direction to what you are attempting to uphold)
NIST has FAILED it's #1 Objective, which was to EXPLAIN this Magical, Mystical Engineering Phenomena !!!
They DEPEND upon YOU (although you readily admit that you have no structural engineering experience or expertise in this area), to 'provide' answers.
Heh...
Show me in the latest 'final-draft-almost-finished' report where they EXPLAIN this phenomena.
Where is it 'Modeled' in their super-duper computer graphics?
Hey, you have access to everything I do (and possibly more)... Show Me - WHERE does NIST model the collapse?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 29 2005, 02:07 AM)
I'm going to say this so even a two year old can understand.
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What you want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter. Heh!
Of course you guys have built your whole life around this fantasy so I don't expect you to understand. You'll just point to another one of Rove's web sites as "Proof". Poof you're being used.
And while you live in LALA land we know for a fact Bush is spying on Americans and you do nothing. Don't you see what they're doing!!!
'They' are doing???
Who are 'they' Schneibster???
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What you want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter. Heh!
Of course you guys have built your whole life around this fantasy so I don't expect you to understand. You'll just point to another one of Rove's web sites as "Proof". Poof you're being used.
And while you live in LALA land we know for a fact Bush is spying on Americans and you do nothing. Don't you see what they're doing!!!
'They' are doing???
Who are 'they' Schneibster???
HEHEHEHE, I see Schneibster left a permenet impression on Foxx. (On his arus no doubt) He must have destroyed Foxx. He can't get him out of his mind. I'm honored to be thought of so highly. Schneibster must have taken his manhood. I feel as bad as Murtha being told he was like Michael Moore. Please continue.
Foxx's hypocracy flows like Niagra falls. He talks about others using insults but the first thing he does is insult everyone on the board. White is black and black is white. Just like foxnews.
"Hey, ah-dt {?} admitted he was 'working on the project', and THESE are the type of 'engineers' you wish to place unfailing trust in !! ???"
But lairs like you should be insulted like the piece of shait you are, you lie about a_ht. He NEVER admited "Working on the project". He admited working for NIST's public relation department. That's it. The proof your aguments fail is the lies you tell in order to advance them.
Yep, just like a shill for Rove, white is black and black is white.
Foxx's hypocracy flows like Niagra falls. He talks about others using insults but the first thing he does is insult everyone on the board. White is black and black is white. Just like foxnews.
"Hey, ah-dt {?} admitted he was 'working on the project', and THESE are the type of 'engineers' you wish to place unfailing trust in !! ???"
But lairs like you should be insulted like the piece of shait you are, you lie about a_ht. He NEVER admited "Working on the project". He admited working for NIST's public relation department. That's it. The proof your aguments fail is the lies you tell in order to advance them.
Yep, just like a shill for Rove, white is black and black is white.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Steve1957
Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors. [Something in the way delays the passage.]
Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors. [Something in the way delays the passage.]
Steve, I have been observing 'these guys' for a couple of years now.
No one needs a PH'd to understand the 'common sense' you are talking about.
{although the typical psyopts maneuver is to reply}...
"NO !!! You have NO Intelligence ... You just don't 'understand'...
Let's just confuse the issue with Science... and if 'That' doesn't work, Let's 'Baffle 'em with BS' " }
Show me, magicians...
Where is resistance taken into account in ANY of the previous mathematical calculations of KE (as opposed to PE) ???
Metamars?
Gordon?
YID ?
Aurthur?
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Dec 28 2005, 07:45 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 28 2005, 07:24 PM)
FYI: "Common Sense" is Yesitdid. You shills are pathetic.
ROFLMAO
Given that C.S.'s style of posting is completely unlike mine just what do you, oh, anonymous guest, base this upon?
No, wait , I know, it is precisely because my posts do not resemble Common Sense's posts proves that I am indeed that person as well and I am only responding to attempt to throw the 'truth seekers' off the trail.
Heh...
C'mon YID... even YOU know that 'Guest' was Schneibster in disguise (thinking he is clever enough to throw others 'off' his personality disorder).
Is he Really 'Fooling YOU' !! ???
IF I was Really a 'conspiracy theorist', I'd think everyone spelling 'ridiculous' as 'Rediculous was YOU...
So, I take it you & yours had a good 'Christmas' ? I see you have tuned your sophist talents over the break.
ROFLMAO
Given that C.S.'s style of posting is completely unlike mine just what do you, oh, anonymous guest, base this upon?
No, wait , I know, it is precisely because my posts do not resemble Common Sense's posts proves that I am indeed that person as well and I am only responding to attempt to throw the 'truth seekers' off the trail.
Heh...
C'mon YID... even YOU know that 'Guest' was Schneibster in disguise (thinking he is clever enough to throw others 'off' his personality disorder).
Is he Really 'Fooling YOU' !! ???
IF I was Really a 'conspiracy theorist', I'd think everyone spelling 'ridiculous' as 'Rediculous was YOU...
So, I take it you & yours had a good 'Christmas' ? I see you have tuned your sophist talents over the break.
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 29 2005, 02:48 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 29 2005, 02:07 AM)
I'm going to say this so even a two year old can understand.
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What you want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter. Heh!
Of course you guys have built your whole life around this fantasy so I don't expect you to understand. You'll just point to another one of Rove's web sites as "Proof". Poof you're being used.
And while you live in LALA land we know for a fact Bush is spying on Americans and you do nothing. Don't you see what they're doing!!!
'They' are doing???
Who are 'they' Schneibster???
Well Steve, "They" are the Bushies.
It's like a bad episode of Pee Wees playhouse. "I know you are but what am I?" only instead of getting caught masterbating in an X-rated movie house you got caught masterbate on this thread. Heh! Don't forget to clean the monitor when your're done.
Hi Billybats...
Nice pics. Where did you get them from?
Many nice pictures of bent steel.
Got any of those Amazing Fractured Pieces?
IIRC, NIST (and official precursors) saved ALL 'relevant' 'fire-damaged' pieces from the 'impact zone' (At Least THOSE which were representative of these areas.
I find it 'odd' that after 'going out-of-their-way' to collect such forensic evidence (and having done so) proclaimed loudly that...
"We have collected ALL relevant forensic evidence... We have All we need... No Problem! We don't need evidence from 'un-affected' floors... That would be just a waste of resources. We Don't need 95% of the steel to determine 'What Happened'... (What 'point' would be served by saving these unaffected pieces of steel) ?
Yet, suddenly...
"Oh... wait a minute --- the 'Other Idiots' saved the 'Wrong Pieces' ! "
We only have 14 million to persue the answer to this Miraculous Engineering Phenomena... (as I said earlier - That'll buy you a small 138' yacht) !!!
Hey !!! This is NOT a major sex issue
(Like Schneibster & Clinton seem to be fixated upon)
Egads, man... has anyone (family, friends, etc) suggested you seek some counselling???
GET HELP !!!
Now your getting it!
Now I'm going to ask you to do (2) things.
#1 Remember all the video clips you saw on the news of the towers falling? If you're too paranoid about going to streaming video places on the Internet, then rent a video at clock buster, but simply look at the way the towers collapsed, WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Don't listen to me or little bush or anyone else, just watch it and think for yourself, look closely at the way the towers fell.
#2 Then see if you can some video clips of various buildings that were demolished via control demolition, now watch it several times to get a grip on it.
Then after you've done your homework assignment you can take this test quiz, which is...
Did the collapse of the WTC towers look similar to other control demolition buildings??? Come on now, be honest. Didn't they look similar?
Yes, they looked exactly alike in the manner in which they collapsed, because in control demolition the charges are very carefully set on all the main floors, possible each and every floor and they are set to explode at certain time sequences in order to achieve the desired result.
Amazing isn't it? But guess what? Some control demolition companies are very skilled at their work and they know how to bring buildings down very effectively.
But it does take some time to set up, sometimes days, weeks and maybe months. That's why when Larry Silverstein admitted they demolished building 7, he also admitted to having the charges set up well before the 9/11 attack.
But even without Larry's confession the laws of gravity alone PROVE IT BEYOND ANY DOUBT!!!
Now I could entertain some of these circus monkeys like "Common Sense", Arthur, and Reality check, just for fun, but the problem is that mindless parrots get boring after a while.
They wouldn't be so bad if they could come up with an original thought now and then, but as they let you know in their posts their EXTREMELY PARANOID and live in fear of the bush man and the government.
But it's no wonder they live in constant fear, they reject the truth about God and therefore BLOCK OUT truth, real common sense and wisdom, and that leaves them with ignorance, fear and stupidity.
I almost feel sorry for those guys walking around like dead zombies, not being able to think for themselves, but always having to wait for their orders from their leaders, I mean what kind of a life is that, but then again God gave us all free will, and it is spelled out in the scriptures that if you depart from the truth and seek after false idols, such as bush, kerry, etc. etc. then you'll be like the guy who turned the water spicket off that was supplying the juice to the brain, and now these poor numbskulls don't have enough sense to turn it back on.
So even though these halfwits, dimwits and nitwits are perpetually stuck in their fantasy world of magicians in caves, in a land where the laws of physics take holidays and where the truth is downright FRIGHTENING to them, there is still hope, yes even for them. And so I write these posts now and then with the thought in my mind that one day these retards will wake up from their coma's.
Like I said, I understand some of the reasons why they are so hooked on these fantasy land stories, IE; the billions of dollars spent on mass media brain washing techniques, which is nothing new, this government and others do it all the time. And so you might call these guys casualties in the war on truth.
When little bush calls it a war on terror, these jerks fall for it hook line and sinker, the same way the white KKK people bought the story that all blacks should be killed, the way Nazi's agreed all jews should be killed and the way the good old american christian agreed that most or all of the native Indians should be killed in order to steal their land and resources.
IT'S CALLED PROPAGANDA, and it's either the first or 2nd oldest profession on the planet, and it works, just look at the dimwits on the board, they are so hypnotized they can't even think for themselves, and it's gotten so bad, the (monkey man-Common Sense) uses an analogy about a 13 story building being about as strong as paper to make a point. The poor guy doesn't even understand the difference between steel core's and steel frame structures and make believe buildings that are paper thin.
Of course the poor guy is so deluded he actually believes OJ Simpson was innocent. What more can I say about that one?
I will say this, there were probably many cases in recent history where people have been blatantly framed by cops all over the place, BUT OJ WASN'T ONE OF THEM.
It just goes to show what happens to the mind once it departs from the truth, it's like the towers collapsing into the abyss.
One more thing on God and the bible. In truth, God is your Father too, I'm only one of His many children, but so are you too. God is the creator and heavenly Father of us all, yep everyone. So I don't have a special connection that none of you have. We are all part of God and can all commune with Him, no matter what your religious title happens to be, as that's just a title and God is not a respecter of persons.
The bible is great if you were given understanding to be able to grasp it, but if not you can still receive the spirit, the love, the truth and yes wisdom from God.
Even athiests are God's children and can receive wisdom, but no matter who you are, when you stick your head in the sand like an ostrich and say, "The sun doesn't exist because I can't see it" which is exactly what the above mentioned nitwits are doing, it doesn't make it true.
The sun is still in the solar system no matter how much you want to deny it, just as God is at the center of your life being, no matter how much you deny that.
In fact you don't even need to talk about God's name on this board, but you should at least try to speak a little truth now and then.
[snip]
Nice pics. Where did you get them from?
Many nice pictures of bent steel.
[snip]
They are from a dvd called Up From Zero, which was free from the department of labor - it's no longer available.
There's also a lot of nice shots of ground dust and debris.
Silverstein did NOT admit to having WTC 7 destroyed by explosive demolition.
Why would Silverstien be consulted on removing the firemen from the building. In every other fire in history steel buildings do not fall down. If you do not fight the fire there is a real possibility the fires will spread to the buildings next to it. Why were the insurance companies or the other building owners left out of the decision?
Odd, My take would be that anyone that believes that he was referring to anything other than pulling the fire fighting effort is retarded.
Odd, My take would be that anyone that believes that he was referring to anything other than pulling the fire fighting effort is retarded.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, blah ,,,,, physcho-babble,,,,,blah So if the truth were to be accepted in your little pee brain it would destroy your fantasy world of what you believe in. All those phony misconceptions you were raised to believe in are wrong and false, such as the lie that our government is so good and honest and trustworthy and all those christian and catholic preachers you thought were so good turned out to be lying scumbag anti-christs.
But people have to come to terms with reality all the time. Imagine all those poor little boys who trusted in their catholic priests only to discover they were child molesters. And every time their mommy's and daddy's delivered them up to the priest, they would be made to bend over and driven to Newark.
So when and if you do ever grow up and mature in your thinking you'll finally have to accept the truth in that you've been lied to your whole life, even by people you loved.
But when that day happens and you finally come to terms with reality, don't hate them, try to forgive them and move on
You are attempting to claim that I suffered abuse from an authority in the past? You are seriously deranged fella. You base this on about as much evidence as you base your bush-is-an-antichrist opinion. Keep posting like this though , I am sure it is quite amusing to many readers.
As I said before , Bible-boy, I place little stock in the Bible fairy tales that you adore. So any reference to the peculiarities and pecadillos of Christians, including Catholics actually does little to convince me of your, another Christian's, POV.
I can see now that anyone who disagrees with you is either an 'anti-christ' or a supporter (willingly or unwittingly) of an 'anti-christ. It is my experience that close minded folk such as yourself come to conclusions based upon previous prejudices first and then arrange any and all data to support that conclusion later.
Silverstein did NOT admit to having WTC 7 destroyed by explosive demolition.
Why would Silverstien be consulted on removing the firemen from the building. In every other fire in history steel buildings do not fall down. If you do not fight the fire there is a real possibility the fires will spread to the buildings next to it. Why were the insurance companies or the other building owners left out of the decision?
Professional courtesy.
If you read what the Cheif was saying , he had little resources to fight any fires in the area and in his opinion WTC 7 could not be fought with the resources he had. Therefore he was pulling his effort out of #7. IMHO if Silverstein had argued for continuing to fight the fire in #7 the Cheif would have simply told him , "no we can't do it".
The resources that the Cheif did have would be better utilized in doing as you say, keeping the fire from spreading to other structures and, in search and rescue.
Now your getting it!
Now I'm going to ask you to do (2) things.
#1 Remember all the video clips you saw on the news of the towers falling? If you're too paranoid about going to streaming video places on the Internet, then rent a video at clock buster, but simply look at the way the towers collapsed, WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Don't listen to me or little bush or anyone else, just watch it and think for yourself, look closely at the way the towers fell.
#2 Then see if you can some video clips of various buildings that were demolished via control demolition, now watch it several times to get a grip on it.
Then after you've done your homework assignment you can take this test quiz, which is...
Did the collapse of the WTC towers look similar to other control demolition buildings??? Come on now, be honest. Didn't they look similar?
OK, did #1
OK, did #2, found CD sites, Viewed Videos.
http://www.demolitiongroup.com/web/explosi...e/explosive.asp
and
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?
Test Quiz:
1. Did the collapse of the WTC towers look similar to other control demolition buildings???
A. No
2. Come on now, be honest. Didn't they look similar?
A. No
Now your getting it!
Now I'm going to ask you to do (2) things.
#1 Remember all the video clips you saw on the news of the towers falling? If you're too paranoid about going to streaming video places on the Internet, then rent a video at clock buster, but simply look at the way the towers collapsed, WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Don't listen to me or little bush or anyone else, just watch it and think for yourself, look closely at the way the towers fell.
#2 Then see if you can some video clips of various buildings that were demolished via control demolition, now watch it several times to get a grip on it.
Then after you've done your homework assignment you can take this test quiz, which is...
Did the collapse of the WTC towers look similar to other control demolition buildings??? Come on now, be honest. Didn't they look similar?
OK, did #1
OK, did #2, found CD sites, Viewed Videos.
http://www.demolitiongroup.com/web/explosi...e/explosive.asp
and
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?
Test Quiz:
1. Did the collapse of the WTC towers look similar to other control demolition buildings???
A. No
2. Come on now, be honest. Didn't they look similar?
A. No
Yes, they looked exactly alike in the manner in which they collapsed, because in control demolition the charges are very carefully set on all the main floors, possible each and every floor and they are set to explode at certain time sequences in order to achieve the desired result.
OK, from the first site look at the Oslo controlled demolition.
Notice the first charges are in the bottom level. No such charges are evident in WTC.
Notice how the building collapses from the BOTTOM UP. Totally unlike WTC.
Second, notice the internal shots, about half way through, you will see the results of the HE going off. Notice the FRAGMENTS of Concrete. How about that, even with the use of HE the concrete is NOT turned into powder.
Then notice how they put blast webbing at the upper floor where they set off explosives. Notice how even with the blast webbing large amounts of material were ejected. No such event was seen in the WTC, which of course should have been greater since there would be no blast webbing.
OK, look at the Hackney.
Again the first charges go off on the bottom level and the building collapses, again, Bottom UP.
Now, notice the UNMISTAKABLE sound of HE. No such sound was heard at the WTC. Assuming the WTC was brought down TOP to BOTTOM, then one would need staged explosives every 3 floors or so. One would expect that at least 1/2 of the columns would have to be cut, so this would be on the order of 600 HE detonations going off. The CRACK of HE is unmistakable because the blast front is supersonic, traveling at a speed between 6,000 fps all the way to 30,000 fps.
Now notice the amount of dust from the actual explosives is relatively minor, the "pyroclastic" cloud, like at the WTC comes from the buildings collapse, not how it was initiated. An even better example is the SIDE shot on the Philadelphia collapse, in this case, you see the explosives go off, a reasonably small amount of smoke/dust come out, the building topples towards the camera and when it hits, THEN the huge dust cloud is emitted. This pretty well dismisses the idea that the dust cloud from the WTC was due to HE.
And maybe my personal favorite, just for the quirkiness aspect, see the demolition of the Pembroke. Here you can see another "spire" being Powderized.
But also what is interesting is though this is a relatively small structure, it is tall, yet the dust cloud volume is many times greater than the structure. Thus, according to Hoffman, it as well must be "Pyroclastic". Which of course means that the buildings next to it would have been torched. I sincerely doubt they were, or the CD business would have provided protection. The key thing visible in this shot is the HUGE difference in the amount of dust created by the HE vs the fall of the structure.
Now from the second site look at the Hudson CD.
First notice the MANY sharp reports from the HE. Notice how many go off before the large HE at the bottom of the structure begins the actual fall, again from the BOTTOM progressing upward. Once again, notice the "pyroclastic" cloud does not come from the explosives but from the buildings collapse.
Now from the second site, look at the Beirut Hilton. Here again they use blast cloth to contain the damage from the upper floor blasts which again, precede the main lower floor blast, to YES, ONCE AGAIN, bring the building down from the BOTTOM up.
Arthur
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What you want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter. Heh!
Of course you guys have built your whole life around this fantasy so I don't expect you to understand. You'll just point to another one of Rove's web sites as "Proof". Poof you're being used.
And while you live in LALA land we know for a fact Bush is spying on Americans and you do nothing. Don't you see what they're doing!!!
'They' are doing???
Who are 'they' Schneibster???
Well Steve, "They" are the Bushies.
It's like a bad episode of Pee Wees playhouse. "I know you are but what am I?" only instead of getting caught masterbating in an X-rated movie house you got caught masterbate on this thread. Heh! Don't forget to clean the monitor when your're done.
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 29 2005, 03:16 AM)
Steve, I have been observing 'these guys' for a couple of years now.
No one needs a PH'd to understand the 'common sense' you are talking about.
{although the typical psyopts maneuver is to reply}...
"NO !!! You have NO Intelligence ... You just don't 'understand'...
Let's just confuse the issue with Science... and if 'That' doesn't work, Let's 'Baffle 'em with BS' " }
Show me, magicians...
Where is resistance taken into account in ANY of the previous mathematical calculations of KE (as opposed to PE) ???
Metamars?
Gordon?
YID ?
Aurthur?
Pretending to talk to steve... Nice touch. Just make sure you don't answer yourself.
Another "You're either with me or against me" post. When will you ever learn...
Be careful YID. Inspector Gadget is about to uncover your true identity. Or is it Inch High Priviate Eye...
No one needs a PH'd to understand the 'common sense' you are talking about.
{although the typical psyopts maneuver is to reply}...
"NO !!! You have NO Intelligence ... You just don't 'understand'...
Let's just confuse the issue with Science... and if 'That' doesn't work, Let's 'Baffle 'em with BS' " }
Show me, magicians...
Where is resistance taken into account in ANY of the previous mathematical calculations of KE (as opposed to PE) ???
Metamars?
Gordon?
YID ?
Aurthur?
Pretending to talk to steve... Nice touch. Just make sure you don't answer yourself.
Another "You're either with me or against me" post. When will you ever learn...
Be careful YID. Inspector Gadget is about to uncover your true identity. Or is it Inch High Priviate Eye...
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 29 2005, 12:52 AM)
Arthur, common sense and reality check, read this breif analysis. Then after you've realized what total idiots you've been concerning the truth and the facts, put another post on this board and say, "I'm sorry" and we'll forgive you.
Or if you can't do that then see if you can poke any holes in this so you can save your reputations...
There is no wiggle room on the laws of physics. For the towers to fall at that rate there had to be NO resistance from each of the floors encountered on the way to the ground.
Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not cannot pass through a structure made of concrete and steel at the same rate as it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).
The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is clear evidence that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.
Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors. [Something in the way delays the passage.]
The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition). http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/proof.htm
Some people trying to use "common sense" without a knowledge of the laws of physics suppose that the addition of one floor after another would make the towers fall faster and faster. An elementary principle of masses falling through space was demonstrated at the Leaning Tower of Pisa nearly 500 years ago. The larger mass does NOT accelerate through space faster than a lighter, more dense mass. It will, however, cause the shredding force because of the connection between the slab and the outer wall.
Better brush up on the physics then.
In order for a building such as this to actually fall at free-fall rate then you cannot simply remove support as the collapsing portion hits the next floor.
Look at it this way, the upper section falls through the 3.7 meters of space at free-fall. you would have it that at this point the next floor's support is removed by explosives. But that next floor has not started to move and is hit by the falling upper section. This has to slow the collapse. In fact the ONLY way to have a true free-fall would be to blow every floor's supports all at the same time and have the entire building fall at once. This did not happen so therefore the collapse was not a free-fall event.
The time of fall has been reported as something between 10 and 16 seconds, true free-fall is less than even the lower limit of that.
Or if you can't do that then see if you can poke any holes in this so you can save your reputations...
There is no wiggle room on the laws of physics. For the towers to fall at that rate there had to be NO resistance from each of the floors encountered on the way to the ground.
Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not cannot pass through a structure made of concrete and steel at the same rate as it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).
The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is clear evidence that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.
Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors. [Something in the way delays the passage.]
The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition). http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/proof.htm
Some people trying to use "common sense" without a knowledge of the laws of physics suppose that the addition of one floor after another would make the towers fall faster and faster. An elementary principle of masses falling through space was demonstrated at the Leaning Tower of Pisa nearly 500 years ago. The larger mass does NOT accelerate through space faster than a lighter, more dense mass. It will, however, cause the shredding force because of the connection between the slab and the outer wall.
Better brush up on the physics then.
In order for a building such as this to actually fall at free-fall rate then you cannot simply remove support as the collapsing portion hits the next floor.
Look at it this way, the upper section falls through the 3.7 meters of space at free-fall. you would have it that at this point the next floor's support is removed by explosives. But that next floor has not started to move and is hit by the falling upper section. This has to slow the collapse. In fact the ONLY way to have a true free-fall would be to blow every floor's supports all at the same time and have the entire building fall at once. This did not happen so therefore the collapse was not a free-fall event.
The time of fall has been reported as something between 10 and 16 seconds, true free-fall is less than even the lower limit of that.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Dec 28 2005, 10:31 PM)
The "big boys" with big computers. Do you mean companies like "Diebold" whose CEO was a "Pioneer" level campaign funder and staunch supporter of the bush candidacy and re-election efforts?
It's funny that you mention Diebold, because Arthur Doucette (adoucette here) was an officer in my bank Carreker Corp.
And my bank happens to have closed a business alliance with Diebold.
I must add that mr Doucette has always been very faithful to Carreker and Diebold management.
It's funny that you mention Diebold, because Arthur Doucette (adoucette here) was an officer in my bank Carreker Corp.
And my bank happens to have closed a business alliance with Diebold.
I must add that mr Doucette has always been very faithful to Carreker and Diebold management.
QUOTE (billybats+Dec 28 2005, 07:50 PM)
Hi Billybats...
Nice pics. Where did you get them from?
Many nice pictures of bent steel.
Got any of those Amazing Fractured Pieces?
IIRC, NIST (and official precursors) saved ALL 'relevant' 'fire-damaged' pieces from the 'impact zone' (At Least THOSE which were representative of these areas.
I find it 'odd' that after 'going out-of-their-way' to collect such forensic evidence (and having done so) proclaimed loudly that...
"We have collected ALL relevant forensic evidence... We have All we need... No Problem! We don't need evidence from 'un-affected' floors... That would be just a waste of resources. We Don't need 95% of the steel to determine 'What Happened'... (What 'point' would be served by saving these unaffected pieces of steel) ?
Yet, suddenly...
"Oh... wait a minute --- the 'Other Idiots' saved the 'Wrong Pieces' ! "
We only have 14 million to persue the answer to this Miraculous Engineering Phenomena... (as I said earlier - That'll buy you a small 138' yacht) !!!
Hey !!! This is NOT a major sex issue
(Like Schneibster & Clinton seem to be fixated upon)
QUOTE
The PNAC'ers say
Hey... 40 million only buys a couple of bombs.
We MUST put those 'resources' into advanced weapons to 'SAVE' us from the 'terrorists'.
Let's just 'forget' about 'Miraculous Events', and spend the money on a few more bombs!!!
Yeah... That's IT !!!
Hey... 40 million only buys a couple of bombs.
We MUST put those 'resources' into advanced weapons to 'SAVE' us from the 'terrorists'.
Let's just 'forget' about 'Miraculous Events', and spend the money on a few more bombs!!!
Yeah... That's IT !!!
Another barely relevent, practically unreadable and demonstrably paranoid post from the great(just ask him , he'll tell you), Foxx. 
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
HEHEHEHE, I see Schneibster left a permenet impression on Foxx. (On his arus no doubt) He must have destroyed Foxx. He can't get him out of his mind. I'm honored to be thought of so highly. Schneibster must have taken his manhood. I feel as bad as Murtha being told he was like Michael Moore. Please continue.
HEHEHEHE, I see Schneibster left a permenet impression on Foxx. (On his arus no doubt) He must have destroyed Foxx. He can't get him out of his mind. I'm honored to be thought of so highly. Schneibster must have taken his manhood. I feel as bad as Murtha being told he was like Michael Moore. Please continue.
Egads, man... has anyone (family, friends, etc) suggested you seek some counselling???
GET HELP !!!
QUOTE
Yesitdid
In fact the ONLY way to have a true free-fall would be to blow every floor's supports all at the same time and have the entire building fall at once.
In fact the ONLY way to have a true free-fall would be to blow every floor's supports all at the same time and have the entire building fall at once.
Now your getting it!
Now I'm going to ask you to do (2) things.
#1 Remember all the video clips you saw on the news of the towers falling? If you're too paranoid about going to streaming video places on the Internet, then rent a video at clock buster, but simply look at the way the towers collapsed, WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Don't listen to me or little bush or anyone else, just watch it and think for yourself, look closely at the way the towers fell.
#2 Then see if you can some video clips of various buildings that were demolished via control demolition, now watch it several times to get a grip on it.
Then after you've done your homework assignment you can take this test quiz, which is...
Did the collapse of the WTC towers look similar to other control demolition buildings??? Come on now, be honest. Didn't they look similar?
Yes, they looked exactly alike in the manner in which they collapsed, because in control demolition the charges are very carefully set on all the main floors, possible each and every floor and they are set to explode at certain time sequences in order to achieve the desired result.
Amazing isn't it? But guess what? Some control demolition companies are very skilled at their work and they know how to bring buildings down very effectively.
But it does take some time to set up, sometimes days, weeks and maybe months. That's why when Larry Silverstein admitted they demolished building 7, he also admitted to having the charges set up well before the 9/11 attack.
But even without Larry's confession the laws of gravity alone PROVE IT BEYOND ANY DOUBT!!!
Now I could entertain some of these circus monkeys like "Common Sense", Arthur, and Reality check, just for fun, but the problem is that mindless parrots get boring after a while.
They wouldn't be so bad if they could come up with an original thought now and then, but as they let you know in their posts their EXTREMELY PARANOID and live in fear of the bush man and the government.
But it's no wonder they live in constant fear, they reject the truth about God and therefore BLOCK OUT truth, real common sense and wisdom, and that leaves them with ignorance, fear and stupidity.
I almost feel sorry for those guys walking around like dead zombies, not being able to think for themselves, but always having to wait for their orders from their leaders, I mean what kind of a life is that, but then again God gave us all free will, and it is spelled out in the scriptures that if you depart from the truth and seek after false idols, such as bush, kerry, etc. etc. then you'll be like the guy who turned the water spicket off that was supplying the juice to the brain, and now these poor numbskulls don't have enough sense to turn it back on.
So even though these halfwits, dimwits and nitwits are perpetually stuck in their fantasy world of magicians in caves, in a land where the laws of physics take holidays and where the truth is downright FRIGHTENING to them, there is still hope, yes even for them. And so I write these posts now and then with the thought in my mind that one day these retards will wake up from their coma's.
Like I said, I understand some of the reasons why they are so hooked on these fantasy land stories, IE; the billions of dollars spent on mass media brain washing techniques, which is nothing new, this government and others do it all the time. And so you might call these guys casualties in the war on truth.
When little bush calls it a war on terror, these jerks fall for it hook line and sinker, the same way the white KKK people bought the story that all blacks should be killed, the way Nazi's agreed all jews should be killed and the way the good old american christian agreed that most or all of the native Indians should be killed in order to steal their land and resources.
IT'S CALLED PROPAGANDA, and it's either the first or 2nd oldest profession on the planet, and it works, just look at the dimwits on the board, they are so hypnotized they can't even think for themselves, and it's gotten so bad, the (monkey man-Common Sense) uses an analogy about a 13 story building being about as strong as paper to make a point. The poor guy doesn't even understand the difference between steel core's and steel frame structures and make believe buildings that are paper thin.
Of course the poor guy is so deluded he actually believes OJ Simpson was innocent. What more can I say about that one?
I will say this, there were probably many cases in recent history where people have been blatantly framed by cops all over the place, BUT OJ WASN'T ONE OF THEM.
It just goes to show what happens to the mind once it departs from the truth, it's like the towers collapsing into the abyss.
One more thing on God and the bible. In truth, God is your Father too, I'm only one of His many children, but so are you too. God is the creator and heavenly Father of us all, yep everyone. So I don't have a special connection that none of you have. We are all part of God and can all commune with Him, no matter what your religious title happens to be, as that's just a title and God is not a respecter of persons.
The bible is great if you were given understanding to be able to grasp it, but if not you can still receive the spirit, the love, the truth and yes wisdom from God.
Even athiests are God's children and can receive wisdom, but no matter who you are, when you stick your head in the sand like an ostrich and say, "The sun doesn't exist because I can't see it" which is exactly what the above mentioned nitwits are doing, it doesn't make it true.
The sun is still in the solar system no matter how much you want to deny it, just as God is at the center of your life being, no matter how much you deny that.
In fact you don't even need to talk about God's name on this board, but you should at least try to speak a little truth now and then.
Hey Foxx,
I wonder if the nitwits are accusing us of being the same person because that's what they do themselves???
It's almost funny some of things they believe.
I wonder if the nitwits are accusing us of being the same person because that's what they do themselves???
It's almost funny some of things they believe.
Gordon,
Are you a construction engineer? Material Scientist? Physicist? Ph.D. level?
Can you speak to the effects of micro-fractures on the strength of steel, after it has recooled?
Also, I haven't had time to investigate this, but what is the effect of exposing steel to hot air at temperature T, as opposed to exposing steel to a heat reservoir at temperature T?
I hadn't really given it a lot of thought, until recently, but it now seems to me that due to the low heat conductivity of air, calculations assuming air is anythling close to a heat reservoir are absurd. My guess is that heat conduction across a (low conductivity + high temperature) / (high conductivity + low temperature) boundary is determined moreso by the former. Can you point me to an equation describing this?
I've been thinking of doing some experiments with pieces of steel, a thermos jug half filled with water at a known temperature as a "calorimeter", and heating via placing in an oven at 212 degrees F, versus in boiling water.
However, I really don't have a lot of time, and would appreciate solid theoretical arguments.
I also "experimented" by seeing how close I could comfortably get my finger to the flame on our stove range, approaching from the side. It was something like 2 inches. Basically, it seems to me that unless the steel is directly touched by flames, it's not going to heat up significantly in a WTC scenario, where the fires were relatively modest. (keeping in mind my previous comments re air's heat conductance)
Are you a construction engineer? Material Scientist? Physicist? Ph.D. level?
Can you speak to the effects of micro-fractures on the strength of steel, after it has recooled?
Also, I haven't had time to investigate this, but what is the effect of exposing steel to hot air at temperature T, as opposed to exposing steel to a heat reservoir at temperature T?
I hadn't really given it a lot of thought, until recently, but it now seems to me that due to the low heat conductivity of air, calculations assuming air is anythling close to a heat reservoir are absurd. My guess is that heat conduction across a (low conductivity + high temperature) / (high conductivity + low temperature) boundary is determined moreso by the former. Can you point me to an equation describing this?
I've been thinking of doing some experiments with pieces of steel, a thermos jug half filled with water at a known temperature as a "calorimeter", and heating via placing in an oven at 212 degrees F, versus in boiling water.
However, I really don't have a lot of time, and would appreciate solid theoretical arguments.
I also "experimented" by seeing how close I could comfortably get my finger to the flame on our stove range, approaching from the side. It was something like 2 inches. Basically, it seems to me that unless the steel is directly touched by flames, it's not going to heat up significantly in a WTC scenario, where the fires were relatively modest. (keeping in mind my previous comments re air's heat conductance)
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 29 2005, 04:52 AM)
QUOTE (billybats+Dec 28 2005, 07:50 PM)
[snip]
Nice pics. Where did you get them from?
Many nice pictures of bent steel.
[snip]
They are from a dvd called Up From Zero, which was free from the department of labor - it's no longer available.
There's also a lot of nice shots of ground dust and debris.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 29 2005, 02:07 AM)
I'm going to say this so even a two year old can understand.
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What you want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter. Heh!
Of course you guys have built your whole life around this fantasy so I don't expect you to understand. You'll just point to another one of Rove's web sites as "Proof". Poof you're being used.
And while you live in LALA land we know for a fact Bush is spying on Americans and you do nothing. Don't you see what they're doing!!!
Hmmm. Seems we've left a little sump'in out of that story. How about THE MASSIVE CORE COLUMNS.
The 'accumulated mass' nonsense has already been dealt with elsewhere by much better people than you. Please leave the technical talk to the grown-ups.
Round, round we go...
Schneibster, do you have wacky carnival music playing in your room whilst pecking away at your keyboard?
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What you want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter. Heh!
Of course you guys have built your whole life around this fantasy so I don't expect you to understand. You'll just point to another one of Rove's web sites as "Proof". Poof you're being used.
And while you live in LALA land we know for a fact Bush is spying on Americans and you do nothing. Don't you see what they're doing!!!
Hmmm. Seems we've left a little sump'in out of that story. How about THE MASSIVE CORE COLUMNS.
The 'accumulated mass' nonsense has already been dealt with elsewhere by much better people than you. Please leave the technical talk to the grown-ups.
Round, round we go...
Schneibster, do you have wacky carnival music playing in your room whilst pecking away at your keyboard?
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 29 2005, 05:24 AM)
Hey Foxx,
I wonder if the nitwits are accusing us of being the same person because that's what they do themselves???
It's almost funny some of things they believe.
Actually I was being sarcastic.
It is Foxx and others who continually accuse others of being multiple posting personalities.
To your question, yes there are some similarities to the collapse of buildings by explosive demolition and what was observed at the WTC.
There are also similarities between the images produced on a movie screen and those produced on a television set. That does not mean that the mechanism by which images are produced on a movie screen is the same as that used to produce an image on your TV.
"Looks like" is not the same as "is".
Silverstein did NOT admit to having WTC 7 destroyed by explosive demolition.
Bent steel does not equate to the use of explosives.
The leaps of inutition that the CT crowd make are driven by paranoia and a desire to pin something really evil on the administration of the USA.
You as much as admit it when you called GWB an "AntiChrist"
I wonder if the nitwits are accusing us of being the same person because that's what they do themselves???
It's almost funny some of things they believe.
Actually I was being sarcastic.
It is Foxx and others who continually accuse others of being multiple posting personalities.
To your question, yes there are some similarities to the collapse of buildings by explosive demolition and what was observed at the WTC.
There are also similarities between the images produced on a movie screen and those produced on a television set. That does not mean that the mechanism by which images are produced on a movie screen is the same as that used to produce an image on your TV.
"Looks like" is not the same as "is".
Silverstein did NOT admit to having WTC 7 destroyed by explosive demolition.
Bent steel does not equate to the use of explosives.
The leaps of inutition that the CT crowd make are driven by paranoia and a desire to pin something really evil on the administration of the USA.
You as much as admit it when you called GWB an "AntiChrist"
Yesitdid,
Wrong again, Larry did confess to demolition building 7, he used the term pull it in combination with many other statements that prove conclusively that he was referring to demolition the building. But you are so caught up in twisting the facts around that you make up some phony analysis, take it way out of context, then pretend to believe your own BS.
To infer Larry meant pull the fireman out is absolutely RETARDED.
Let me help you out here. If some one says I had 2 widgets then I added 2 more widgets, how many widgets would he then have in total???
Myself and other REASONABLE PEOPLE would conclude that he had 4 widgets, IE; 2 + 2 = 4.
But in order to prop up your fairy tale of the magician in the cave you have to conclude that 2 + 2 = 9
Now this was just an analogy, as you'll probably argue that you never said 2 + 2 = 0 literally, but that statement is very analogous to the types of arguments your making.
If you ever stopped and really thought about your ridiculous posts and how far from reality they sound you might try to re-assess your position.
Like the OJ Simpson trial. It was more than obvious that the evidence proved he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, however your buddy Common Sense who seems to share your mindset is convinced he didn't do it.
I hate to pull out all your dirty laundry and expose all the wild, crazy fairy tales you guys are trying to sell, but it goes to PATTERN.
When you have a repulsion of the truth it shows in other ways as well, and so we have to analyze why do you have such a problem with the truth and feel the need to twist the truth, deny facts and mislead people away from reality.
And the answer is obvious. The truth is your enemy, because in truth your government has been lying to people, not only about 9/11, but many other things as well.
And what really drives you up the wall so that you just can't handle it, is the fact that so many other people support and promote the lies. Some of these people include most all the churches throughout the land, many illegitimate engineers, who have prostituted themselves out by endorsing this ridiculous fairy tale that defies ALL THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, and many other so called "credible people"
So if the truth were to be accepted in your little pee brain it would destroy your fantasy world of what you believe in. All those phony misconceptions you were raised to believe in are wrong and false, such as the lie that our government is so good and honest and trustworthy and all those christian and catholic preachers you thought were so good turned out to be lying scumbag anti-christs.
But people have to come to terms with reality all the time. Imagine all those poor little boys who trusted in their catholic priests only to discover they were child molesters. And every time their mommy's and daddy's delivered them up to the priest, they would be made to bend over and driven to Newark.
So when and if you do ever grow up and mature in your thinking you'll finally have to accept the truth in that you've been lied to your whole life, even by people you loved.
But when that day happens and you finally come to terms with reality, don't hate them, try to forgive them and move on.
Wrong again, Larry did confess to demolition building 7, he used the term pull it in combination with many other statements that prove conclusively that he was referring to demolition the building. But you are so caught up in twisting the facts around that you make up some phony analysis, take it way out of context, then pretend to believe your own BS.
To infer Larry meant pull the fireman out is absolutely RETARDED.
Let me help you out here. If some one says I had 2 widgets then I added 2 more widgets, how many widgets would he then have in total???
Myself and other REASONABLE PEOPLE would conclude that he had 4 widgets, IE; 2 + 2 = 4.
But in order to prop up your fairy tale of the magician in the cave you have to conclude that 2 + 2 = 9
Now this was just an analogy, as you'll probably argue that you never said 2 + 2 = 0 literally, but that statement is very analogous to the types of arguments your making.
If you ever stopped and really thought about your ridiculous posts and how far from reality they sound you might try to re-assess your position.
Like the OJ Simpson trial. It was more than obvious that the evidence proved he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, however your buddy Common Sense who seems to share your mindset is convinced he didn't do it.
I hate to pull out all your dirty laundry and expose all the wild, crazy fairy tales you guys are trying to sell, but it goes to PATTERN.
When you have a repulsion of the truth it shows in other ways as well, and so we have to analyze why do you have such a problem with the truth and feel the need to twist the truth, deny facts and mislead people away from reality.
And the answer is obvious. The truth is your enemy, because in truth your government has been lying to people, not only about 9/11, but many other things as well.
And what really drives you up the wall so that you just can't handle it, is the fact that so many other people support and promote the lies. Some of these people include most all the churches throughout the land, many illegitimate engineers, who have prostituted themselves out by endorsing this ridiculous fairy tale that defies ALL THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, and many other so called "credible people"
So if the truth were to be accepted in your little pee brain it would destroy your fantasy world of what you believe in. All those phony misconceptions you were raised to believe in are wrong and false, such as the lie that our government is so good and honest and trustworthy and all those christian and catholic preachers you thought were so good turned out to be lying scumbag anti-christs.
But people have to come to terms with reality all the time. Imagine all those poor little boys who trusted in their catholic priests only to discover they were child molesters. And every time their mommy's and daddy's delivered them up to the priest, they would be made to bend over and driven to Newark.
So when and if you do ever grow up and mature in your thinking you'll finally have to accept the truth in that you've been lied to your whole life, even by people you loved.
But when that day happens and you finally come to terms with reality, don't hate them, try to forgive them and move on.
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Dec 29 2005, 05:57 PM)
Silverstein did NOT admit to having WTC 7 destroyed by explosive demolition.
Why would Silverstien be consulted on removing the firemen from the building. In every other fire in history steel buildings do not fall down. If you do not fight the fire there is a real possibility the fires will spread to the buildings next to it. Why were the insurance companies or the other building owners left out of the decision?
QUOTE
Wrong again, Larry did confess to demolition building 7, he used the term pull it in combination with many other statements that prove conclusively that he was referring to demolition the building. But you are so caught up in twisting the facts around that you make up some phony analysis, take it way out of context, then pretend to believe your own BS.
To infer Larry meant pull the fireman out is absolutely RETARDED.
To infer Larry meant pull the fireman out is absolutely RETARDED.
Odd, My take would be that anyone that believes that he was referring to anything other than pulling the fire fighting effort is retarded.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wrong again, Larry did confess to demolition building 7, he used the term pull it in combination with many other statements that prove conclusively that he was referring to demolition the building. But you are so caught up in twisting the facts around that you make up some phony analysis, take it way out of context, then pretend to believe your own BS. To infer Larry meant pull the fireman out is absolutely RETARDED. |
Odd, My take would be that anyone that believes that he was referring to anything other than pulling the fire fighting effort is retarded.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, blah ,,,,, physcho-babble,,,,,blah So if the truth were to be accepted in your little pee brain it would destroy your fantasy world of what you believe in. All those phony misconceptions you were raised to believe in are wrong and false, such as the lie that our government is so good and honest and trustworthy and all those christian and catholic preachers you thought were so good turned out to be lying scumbag anti-christs.
But people have to come to terms with reality all the time. Imagine all those poor little boys who trusted in their catholic priests only to discover they were child molesters. And every time their mommy's and daddy's delivered them up to the priest, they would be made to bend over and driven to Newark.
So when and if you do ever grow up and mature in your thinking you'll finally have to accept the truth in that you've been lied to your whole life, even by people you loved.
But when that day happens and you finally come to terms with reality, don't hate them, try to forgive them and move on
You are attempting to claim that I suffered abuse from an authority in the past? You are seriously deranged fella. You base this on about as much evidence as you base your bush-is-an-antichrist opinion. Keep posting like this though , I am sure it is quite amusing to many readers.
As I said before , Bible-boy, I place little stock in the Bible fairy tales that you adore. So any reference to the peculiarities and pecadillos of Christians, including Catholics actually does little to convince me of your, another Christian's, POV.
I can see now that anyone who disagrees with you is either an 'anti-christ' or a supporter (willingly or unwittingly) of an 'anti-christ. It is my experience that close minded folk such as yourself come to conclusions based upon previous prejudices first and then arrange any and all data to support that conclusion later.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 29 2005, 08:33 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Dec 29 2005, 05:57 PM)
Silverstein did NOT admit to having WTC 7 destroyed by explosive demolition.
Why would Silverstien be consulted on removing the firemen from the building. In every other fire in history steel buildings do not fall down. If you do not fight the fire there is a real possibility the fires will spread to the buildings next to it. Why were the insurance companies or the other building owners left out of the decision?
Professional courtesy.
If you read what the Cheif was saying , he had little resources to fight any fires in the area and in his opinion WTC 7 could not be fought with the resources he had. Therefore he was pulling his effort out of #7. IMHO if Silverstein had argued for continuing to fight the fire in #7 the Cheif would have simply told him , "no we can't do it".
The resources that the Cheif did have would be better utilized in doing as you say, keeping the fire from spreading to other structures and, in search and rescue.
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 29 2005, 05:21 AM)
QUOTE
Yesitdid
In fact the ONLY way to have a true free-fall would be to blow every floor's supports all at the same time and have the entire building fall at once.
In fact the ONLY way to have a true free-fall would be to blow every floor's supports all at the same time and have the entire building fall at once.
Now your getting it!
Now I'm going to ask you to do (2) things.
#1 Remember all the video clips you saw on the news of the towers falling? If you're too paranoid about going to streaming video places on the Internet, then rent a video at clock buster, but simply look at the way the towers collapsed, WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Don't listen to me or little bush or anyone else, just watch it and think for yourself, look closely at the way the towers fell.
#2 Then see if you can some video clips of various buildings that were demolished via control demolition, now watch it several times to get a grip on it.
Then after you've done your homework assignment you can take this test quiz, which is...
Did the collapse of the WTC towers look similar to other control demolition buildings??? Come on now, be honest. Didn't they look similar?
OK, did #1
OK, did #2, found CD sites, Viewed Videos.
http://www.demolitiongroup.com/web/explosi...e/explosive.asp
and
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?
Test Quiz:
1. Did the collapse of the WTC towers look similar to other control demolition buildings???
A. No
2. Come on now, be honest. Didn't they look similar?
A. No
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yesitdid In fact the ONLY way to have a true free-fall would be to blow every floor's supports all at the same time and have the entire building fall at once. |
Now your getting it!
Now I'm going to ask you to do (2) things.
#1 Remember all the video clips you saw on the news of the towers falling? If you're too paranoid about going to streaming video places on the Internet, then rent a video at clock buster, but simply look at the way the towers collapsed, WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Don't listen to me or little bush or anyone else, just watch it and think for yourself, look closely at the way the towers fell.
#2 Then see if you can some video clips of various buildings that were demolished via control demolition, now watch it several times to get a grip on it.
Then after you've done your homework assignment you can take this test quiz, which is...
Did the collapse of the WTC towers look similar to other control demolition buildings??? Come on now, be honest. Didn't they look similar?
OK, did #1
OK, did #2, found CD sites, Viewed Videos.
http://www.demolitiongroup.com/web/explosi...e/explosive.asp
and
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?
Test Quiz:
1. Did the collapse of the WTC towers look similar to other control demolition buildings???
A. No
2. Come on now, be honest. Didn't they look similar?
A. No
Yes, they looked exactly alike in the manner in which they collapsed, because in control demolition the charges are very carefully set on all the main floors, possible each and every floor and they are set to explode at certain time sequences in order to achieve the desired result.
OK, from the first site look at the Oslo controlled demolition.
Notice the first charges are in the bottom level. No such charges are evident in WTC.
Notice how the building collapses from the BOTTOM UP. Totally unlike WTC.
Second, notice the internal shots, about half way through, you will see the results of the HE going off. Notice the FRAGMENTS of Concrete. How about that, even with the use of HE the concrete is NOT turned into powder.
Then notice how they put blast webbing at the upper floor where they set off explosives. Notice how even with the blast webbing large amounts of material were ejected. No such event was seen in the WTC, which of course should have been greater since there would be no blast webbing.
OK, look at the Hackney.
Again the first charges go off on the bottom level and the building collapses, again, Bottom UP.
Now, notice the UNMISTAKABLE sound of HE. No such sound was heard at the WTC. Assuming the WTC was brought down TOP to BOTTOM, then one would need staged explosives every 3 floors or so. One would expect that at least 1/2 of the columns would have to be cut, so this would be on the order of 600 HE detonations going off. The CRACK of HE is unmistakable because the blast front is supersonic, traveling at a speed between 6,000 fps all the way to 30,000 fps.
Now notice the amount of dust from the actual explosives is relatively minor, the "pyroclastic" cloud, like at the WTC comes from the buildings collapse, not how it was initiated. An even better example is the SIDE shot on the Philadelphia collapse, in this case, you see the explosives go off, a reasonably small amount of smoke/dust come out, the building topples towards the camera and when it hits, THEN the huge dust cloud is emitted. This pretty well dismisses the idea that the dust cloud from the WTC was due to HE.
And maybe my personal favorite, just for the quirkiness aspect, see the demolition of the Pembroke. Here you can see another "spire" being Powderized.
But also what is interesting is though this is a relatively small structure, it is tall, yet the dust cloud volume is many times greater than the structure. Thus, according to Hoffman, it as well must be "Pyroclastic". Which of course means that the buildings next to it would have been torched. I sincerely doubt they were, or the CD business would have provided protection. The key thing visible in this shot is the HUGE difference in the amount of dust created by the HE vs the fall of the structure.
Now from the second site look at the Hudson CD.
First notice the MANY sharp reports from the HE. Notice how many go off before the large HE at the bottom of the structure begins the actual fall, again from the BOTTOM progressing upward. Once again, notice the "pyroclastic" cloud does not come from the explosives but from the buildings collapse.
Now from the second site, look at the Beirut Hilton. Here again they use blast cloth to contain the damage from the upper floor blasts which again, precede the main lower floor blast, to YES, ONCE AGAIN, bring the building down from the BOTTOM up.
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 29 2005, 05:28 AM)
Gordon,
Are you a construction engineer? Material Scientist? Physicist? Ph.D. level?
Can you speak to the effects of micro-fractures on the strength of steel, after it has recooled?
Also, I haven't had time to investigate this, but what is the effect of exposing steel to hot air at temperature T, as opposed to exposing steel to a heat reservoir at temperature T?
I hadn't really given it a lot of thought, until recently, but it now seems to me that due to the low heat conductivity of air, calculations assuming air is anythling close to a heat reservoir are absurd. My guess is that heat conduction across a (low conductivity + high temperature) / (high conductivity + low temperature) boundary is determined moreso by the former. Can you point me to an equation describing this?
I've been thinking of doing some experiments with pieces of steel, a thermos jug half filled with water at a known temperature as a "calorimeter", and heating via placing in an oven at 212 degrees F, versus in boiling water.
However, I really don't have a lot of time, and would appreciate solid theoretical arguments.
I also "experimented" by seeing how close I could comfortably get my finger to the flame on our stove range, approaching from the side. It was something like 2 inches. Basically, it seems to me that unless the steel is directly touched by flames, it's not going to heat up significantly in a WTC scenario, where the fires were relatively modest. (keeping in mind my previous comments re air's heat conductance)
Hi metamars!
Hope you're having a great and safe holiday season!
Re the 'air' and heat transfer etc. In any truly HIGH temp 'bodies' of air, there are THREE basic HEAT-ENERGY-TRANSFER MECHANISMS:-
(1) INFRA-RED (THERMAL) RADIATION: which at high temperatures is VERY significant for heat/energy transfer from air body to materials nearby (which is why Firemen and people working at foundries near open 'furnaces' ALL wear thick and/or reflective RADIANT HEAT PROOF protective clothing).
(2) CONDUCTED HEAT: which for 'STILL' AIR is not very significant because the RATE of transfer from the main mass of that still air to the 'edges' of that hot air body in contact with the materials is, as you correctly observe, very LOW...which is where 'convection' (as opposed to 'conduction') comes into the picture, as follows....
(3) CONVECTED HEAT: from CIRCULATING/MOVING air, which is a necessary condition for 'oxygen input' to the combustibles. This is the OTHER SIGNIFICANT heat transfer mechanism...ie, continuously DIFFERENT parts of hot air CIRCULATE into CONTACT with the affected materials after the previous hot air has imparted its own heat load before moving on.
That's all the time I have for now, mate; just thought the above might be of use to those discussing the thermo/chemico-dynamics of the air/gases/structural/combustible materials involved. Ciao for now.
RealityCheck.
.
Are you a construction engineer? Material Scientist? Physicist? Ph.D. level?
Can you speak to the effects of micro-fractures on the strength of steel, after it has recooled?
Also, I haven't had time to investigate this, but what is the effect of exposing steel to hot air at temperature T, as opposed to exposing steel to a heat reservoir at temperature T?
I hadn't really given it a lot of thought, until recently, but it now seems to me that due to the low heat conductivity of air, calculations assuming air is anythling close to a heat reservoir are absurd. My guess is that heat conduction across a (low conductivity + high temperature) / (high conductivity + low temperature) boundary is determined moreso by the former. Can you point me to an equation describing this?
I've been thinking of doing some experiments with pieces of steel, a thermos jug half filled with water at a known temperature as a "calorimeter", and heating via placing in an oven at 212 degrees F, versus in boiling water.
However, I really don't have a lot of time, and would appreciate solid theoretical arguments.
I also "experimented" by seeing how close I could comfortably get my finger to the flame on our stove range, approaching from the side. It was something like 2 inches. Basically, it seems to me that unless the steel is directly touched by flames, it's not going to heat up significantly in a WTC scenario, where the fires were relatively modest. (keeping in mind my previous comments re air's heat conductance)
Hi metamars!
Hope you're having a great and safe holiday season!
Re the 'air' and heat transfer etc. In any truly HIGH temp 'bodies' of air, there are THREE basic HEAT-ENERGY-TRANSFER MECHANISMS:-
(1) INFRA-RED (THERMAL) RADIATION: which at high temperatures is VERY significant for heat/energy transfer from air body to materials nearby (which is why Firemen and people working at foundries near open 'furnaces' ALL wear thick and/or reflective RADIANT HEAT PROOF protective clothing).
(2) CONDUCTED HEAT: which for 'STILL' AIR is not very significant because the RATE of transfer from the main mass of that still air to the 'edges' of that hot air body in contact with the materials is, as you correctly observe, very LOW...which is where 'convection' (as opposed to 'conduction') comes into the picture, as follows....
(3) CONVECTED HEAT: from CIRCULATING/MOVING air, which is a necessary condition for 'oxygen input' to the combustibles. This is the OTHER SIGNIFICANT heat transfer mechanism...ie, continuously DIFFERENT parts of hot air CIRCULATE into CONTACT with the affected materials after the previous hot air has imparted its own heat load before moving on.
That's all the time I have for now, mate; just thought the above might be of use to those discussing the thermo/chemico-dynamics of the air/gases/structural/combustible materials involved. Ciao for now.
RealityCheck.
.
yesdidit,
When I reminded you that bush is an antichrist, I also reminded you that he's by no means the only one. It's the retarded false churches who twist the scriptures into thinking there's only one guy. So look at what it really says...
1John 2:18 "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time".
You see my dear boy, there are MANY
Now lets take a closer look on who is an anti-christ...
1John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son".
That's why I said, if you want to know who anti-christ is just look in the mirror, as you openly deny that Jesus is the Christ.
But don't feel like the Lone Ranger Tonto, because in truth we have all denied Christ, remember when Peter denied Him 3 times before the rooster crowed?
Point being, we have all played the part of anti-christ, we have all been little devils, and while people like bush, and hitler, cheney and others are more obvious than others in truth, "We've all been there and done that"
But don't just think that little bush and the neo/cons are the only Nazi's in this country. In truth there's a lot more Nazi's in this country than your little mind could handle. Remember the KKK?
Now here's something that the US military designed many decades ago. And this is real, anyone can find it from an airplane or Google Earth, because it's an Ariel photograph.
Now lets be honest, do you think the designers new what the building would look like before the made it? Or do you think this was purely coincidental?
I'm sure Arthur or that little phony "Common Sense" will try to convince you not to believe your own eyes, but rather trust in their warped opinion.
I shouldn't be so hard on Arthur seeings how the poor guys not playing with a full deck, but a little dose of reality now and then might do him some good.
When I reminded you that bush is an antichrist, I also reminded you that he's by no means the only one. It's the retarded false churches who twist the scriptures into thinking there's only one guy. So look at what it really says...
1John 2:18 "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time".
You see my dear boy, there are MANY
Now lets take a closer look on who is an anti-christ...
1John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son".
That's why I said, if you want to know who anti-christ is just look in the mirror, as you openly deny that Jesus is the Christ.
But don't feel like the Lone Ranger Tonto, because in truth we have all denied Christ, remember when Peter denied Him 3 times before the rooster crowed?
Point being, we have all played the part of anti-christ, we have all been little devils, and while people like bush, and hitler, cheney and others are more obvious than others in truth, "We've all been there and done that"
But don't just think that little bush and the neo/cons are the only Nazi's in this country. In truth there's a lot more Nazi's in this country than your little mind could handle. Remember the KKK?
Now here's something that the US military designed many decades ago. And this is real, anyone can find it from an airplane or Google Earth, because it's an Ariel photograph.
Now lets be honest, do you think the designers new what the building would look like before the made it? Or do you think this was purely coincidental?
I'm sure Arthur or that little phony "Common Sense" will try to convince you not to believe your own eyes, but rather trust in their warped opinion.
I shouldn't be so hard on Arthur seeings how the poor guys not playing with a full deck, but a little dose of reality now and then might do him some good.
yesdidit,
And one more thing about the bible. It's sad that you have such a hatred of the truth and bury your head in the sand and chose to live in denial concerning the wealth of information found in the bible.
It's true that all too many false preachers and scumbags have perverted the real meaning of the scriptures, because the depth of the truth can answer more questions than you can imagine.
Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it"?
And one more thing about the bible. It's sad that you have such a hatred of the truth and bury your head in the sand and chose to live in denial concerning the wealth of information found in the bible.
It's true that all too many false preachers and scumbags have perverted the real meaning of the scriptures, because the depth of the truth can answer more questions than you can imagine.
Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it"?
QUOTE (Mel+Dec 29 2005, 05:36 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 29 2005, 02:07 AM)
I'm going to say this so even a two year old can understand.
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What you want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter. Heh!
Of course you guys have built your whole life around this fantasy so I don't expect you to understand. You'll just point to another one of Rove's web sites as "Proof". Poof you're being used.
And while you live in LALA land we know for a fact Bush is spying on Americans and you do nothing. Don't you see what they're doing!!!
Hmmm. Seems we've left a little sump'in out of that story. How about THE MASSIVE CORE COLUMNS.
The 'accumulated mass' nonsense has already been dealt with elsewhere by much better people than you. Please leave the technical talk to the grown-ups.
Round, round we go...
Schneibster, do you have wacky carnival music playing in your room whilst pecking away at your keyboard?
Well it's settled then! You're adding and abetting a mass murderer because you haven't passed a peer reviewed paper saying as much! Since your so technically savvy Steve. Pass your paper by a structural engineering journal.
The only thing dealt with is the glaring incompetence of your hypothesis. Forget that many of the core columns were severed by a 500 mile an hour welding tool. You can CLEARLY see in the photo I posted the outer beams being pulled in about 10 inches. It's been already established the outer column are designed for lateral strength so what do you think happened to the other side of that truss. Do you think a remaining columns designed for vertical strength wont rip apart as the building fell? You would, what a putts.
It peeled like a banana, you know bananas don't you Steve? Being the knuckle dragging chimp you are.
And in at least ONE video you could see parts of the core of one building fall a few seconds after the building fell. It was ripped apart with only one side left. It fell over like the doctor who pulled you out of the womb.
Now here's something that the US military designed many decades ago. And this is real, anyone can find it from an airplane or Google Earth, because it's an Ariel photograph.
Now lets be honest, do you think the designers new what the building would look like before the made it? Or do you think this was purely coincidental?
I'm sure Arthur or that little phony "Common Sense" will try to convince you not to believe your own eyes, but rather trust in their warped opinion.
I shouldn't be so hard on Arthur seeings how the poor guys not playing with a full deck, but a little dose of reality now and then might do him some good.
Well I've seen a lot of building plans, and they have a lot of views (elevations) but you know, I've NEVER seen an AERIAL view of ANY building.
Wonder why?
Maybe because that's the ONLY view no one ever routinely sees?
If you look at the building you will see it really ISN'T a swastica, its really just 4 "L" shaped buildings. They are NOT connected, there is a large open area at the center, but the aerial view and lighting make it look much more like the Nazi symbol than it really is.
Now, possibly the Architect was doing this (making a somewhat swastica shaped building) on purpose, but without knowing who the architect was and his/her political leanings its really hard to say.
But then you see something sinister in "Pull it" so it doesn't surprise me that you see something sinister in this.
Arthur
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What you want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter. Heh!
Of course you guys have built your whole life around this fantasy so I don't expect you to understand. You'll just point to another one of Rove's web sites as "Proof". Poof you're being used.
And while you live in LALA land we know for a fact Bush is spying on Americans and you do nothing. Don't you see what they're doing!!!
Hmmm. Seems we've left a little sump'in out of that story. How about THE MASSIVE CORE COLUMNS.
The 'accumulated mass' nonsense has already been dealt with elsewhere by much better people than you. Please leave the technical talk to the grown-ups.
Round, round we go...
Schneibster, do you have wacky carnival music playing in your room whilst pecking away at your keyboard?
Well it's settled then! You're adding and abetting a mass murderer because you haven't passed a peer reviewed paper saying as much! Since your so technically savvy Steve. Pass your paper by a structural engineering journal.
The only thing dealt with is the glaring incompetence of your hypothesis. Forget that many of the core columns were severed by a 500 mile an hour welding tool. You can CLEARLY see in the photo I posted the outer beams being pulled in about 10 inches. It's been already established the outer column are designed for lateral strength so what do you think happened to the other side of that truss. Do you think a remaining columns designed for vertical strength wont rip apart as the building fell? You would, what a putts.
It peeled like a banana, you know bananas don't you Steve? Being the knuckle dragging chimp you are.
And in at least ONE video you could see parts of the core of one building fall a few seconds after the building fell. It was ripped apart with only one side left. It fell over like the doctor who pulled you out of the womb.
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 29 2005, 09:30 PM)
Now here's something that the US military designed many decades ago. And this is real, anyone can find it from an airplane or Google Earth, because it's an Ariel photograph.
Now lets be honest, do you think the designers new what the building would look like before the made it? Or do you think this was purely coincidental?
I'm sure Arthur or that little phony "Common Sense" will try to convince you not to believe your own eyes, but rather trust in their warped opinion.
I shouldn't be so hard on Arthur seeings how the poor guys not playing with a full deck, but a little dose of reality now and then might do him some good.
Well I've seen a lot of building plans, and they have a lot of views (elevations) but you know, I've NEVER seen an AERIAL view of ANY building.
Wonder why?
Maybe because that's the ONLY view no one ever routinely sees?
If you look at the building you will see it really ISN'T a swastica, its really just 4 "L" shaped buildings. They are NOT connected, there is a large open area at the center, but the aerial view and lighting make it look much more like the Nazi symbol than it really is.
Now, possibly the Architect was doing this (making a somewhat swastica shaped building) on purpose, but without knowing who the architect was and his/her political leanings its really hard to say.
But then you see something sinister in "Pull it" so it doesn't surprise me that you see something sinister in this.
Arthur
Reality check said,
I was not commenting on your assertions regarding 'free-fall' speed of collapse etc etc...I merely limited my comments to pointing out that the so-called 'inertia' supposedly to be 'overcome' by a mass under constant 'gravitational acceleration' IS NOT THERE in the sense you spoke of it in the post to which I replied...not like such 'inertia' WOULD be in NON-GRAVITY-ACCELERATED frames…
I made no assertions regarding "freefall speed of collapse". My position is that I have not seen a plausible initiation mechanism for the collapse of the towers, and even if one were artificially or theoretically provided which led to a freefall of the top section through one floor, this would not then lead to total collapse. I further asserted that after the first artificially produced freefall and impact there would be no instant where the lower section and upper section failed to act against each other and therefore at no point in time would the upper section be able to undergo a further freefall. There would of course be pieces falling under gravity in particular those which fell outside the original perimeter.
Common sense said
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
This may be true, but it does not give a successful analogy for the collapse. The load carrying members, and thus those which must be overcome in order to progress the collapse, are the central core and perimeter columns. The floors add little to the vertical strength.
Further, the building was a prism - it had vertical walls and the same csa on each storey. The upper section could not fit inside the lower section even if the core were removed and thus could not impact the floors.
I would also ask how it was possible for this "thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end" to exert a pulling force sufficient to deflect the outer columns by 55" as postulated in the NIST report?
Surely these two 1" bolts even in double shear would fail if subject to such a load, especially when it can be argued that they would have been at a higher temperature than the perimeter columns, and certainly those affixed to the core would be in the highest temperature zone.
Metamars asked,
Can you speak to the effects of micro-fractures on the strength of steel, after it has recooled?
The extent of these would depend on the load and heat conditions present. While it may be debatable whether these occurred or not, there is little doubt that if they were present they would reduce the capacity of the members so affected. However, their position in the structure would necessarily be in the heat affected area and any weakening of the upper section would make it more prone to damage on impact. This would have the effect of reducing the mass of the impacting upper section and thereby allow the collapse to be arrested earlier than would be the case if they were not present.
yesitdid said
Bent steel does not equate to the use of explosives.
Agreed. What do the straight bits equate to? I would say that they signify that these pieces have not been subject to loads beyond the Yield strength.
G
I was not commenting on your assertions regarding 'free-fall' speed of collapse etc etc...I merely limited my comments to pointing out that the so-called 'inertia' supposedly to be 'overcome' by a mass under constant 'gravitational acceleration' IS NOT THERE in the sense you spoke of it in the post to which I replied...not like such 'inertia' WOULD be in NON-GRAVITY-ACCELERATED frames…
I made no assertions regarding "freefall speed of collapse". My position is that I have not seen a plausible initiation mechanism for the collapse of the towers, and even if one were artificially or theoretically provided which led to a freefall of the top section through one floor, this would not then lead to total collapse. I further asserted that after the first artificially produced freefall and impact there would be no instant where the lower section and upper section failed to act against each other and therefore at no point in time would the upper section be able to undergo a further freefall. There would of course be pieces falling under gravity in particular those which fell outside the original perimeter.
Common sense said
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
This may be true, but it does not give a successful analogy for the collapse. The load carrying members, and thus those which must be overcome in order to progress the collapse, are the central core and perimeter columns. The floors add little to the vertical strength.
Further, the building was a prism - it had vertical walls and the same csa on each storey. The upper section could not fit inside the lower section even if the core were removed and thus could not impact the floors.
I would also ask how it was possible for this "thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end" to exert a pulling force sufficient to deflect the outer columns by 55" as postulated in the NIST report?
Surely these two 1" bolts even in double shear would fail if subject to such a load, especially when it can be argued that they would have been at a higher temperature than the perimeter columns, and certainly those affixed to the core would be in the highest temperature zone.
Metamars asked,
Can you speak to the effects of micro-fractures on the strength of steel, after it has recooled?
The extent of these would depend on the load and heat conditions present. While it may be debatable whether these occurred or not, there is little doubt that if they were present they would reduce the capacity of the members so affected. However, their position in the structure would necessarily be in the heat affected area and any weakening of the upper section would make it more prone to damage on impact. This would have the effect of reducing the mass of the impacting upper section and thereby allow the collapse to be arrested earlier than would be the case if they were not present.
yesitdid said
Bent steel does not equate to the use of explosives.
Agreed. What do the straight bits equate to? I would say that they signify that these pieces have not been subject to loads beyond the Yield strength.
G
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 28 2005, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 28 2005, 01:38 AM)
Here is the interview which I'm sure you know about...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
"Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...igro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt
What we have for sure...
Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
It means "PULL" the teams out!
Thank you for using common sense. Have a nice day...
I'm going to keep reposting this until it sinks in...
How many times do I have to refutt the obvious lie that Silverstein ordered the building to be brought down?
OK now lets see if we can get into the physics, Arthur, Phony, I mean "Common Sense" Reality check and yesididit" it's time to put your thinking caps on and pay attention
No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns".
BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones
"Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location"
"Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck"
One of the things I like about that picture of Jones is that all revealing GRIN on his face. It's telling his colleges and others "Oh come-on, who do you think your fooling"
But Jones is just one of many, and it's not about taking his word for it, just because he's a creadbile Phd. with an extensive background in physics, but more importantly it's because ALL THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS WHAT HE'S SAYING.
You see contrary to the idiotic statement made by (phony-Common Sense) you should never put all your trust in someone just because they have more knowledge than you, if that was the case, then all these phony balony's like "Common sense", etc. would be compelled to put their trust in Jones.
It's called "Hypocrisy" He says we should trust in people with more knowledge on one side of his mouth, but then when it comes to Jones, who obviously has more knowledge in physics and structural engineering in his little finger than "Common Sense" Reality check, yesididit and our other mentally disturbe buddy Arthur have in their whole worlds, they don't listen to him.
Not that I'm encouraging anyone to trust in anyone blindly, but just to emphasize the hypocrisy that seems to be a way of life for some people.
Never the less. We shouldn't trust people blindly, but use what is called dicernment. In fact the problems that some of those little boys had, who got molested by their priests is that their mommy's blindly trusted in those wolves in sheeps clothing.
When your doctor wants to perform an operation on you, then obviously your pretty stuck, but if you dicern something isn't right then you shouldn't blindly trust in him, but rather "get a second opinion"
And here we are with 9/11, the neo/con nazi's which include the democrats who go along with it have sold the public a bill of goods, that is an obvious lie, and just because they have a little more knowledge at some of these things doesn't mean we should trust in them.
I'm a fair chess player, and if I talk with a senior grandmaster about complicated openings and strategies chances are he's correct, because he's far more advanced in his knowledge, but if the same grandmaster tries to tell me that black always moves first, or that rooks move diagonal then I know he's wrong, no matter how much more knowledge he has than myself.
When it comes to the bible, God Himself tells us all to "Not trust in man" in fact Jeremiah 17:5 says "Cursed is the man who trusts in man"
Final point "THINK FOR YOURSELF" and seek wisdom from within. If you can't see something TRY OPENING YOUR EYES.
Or better put, if your like the ignorant sheople on this board with your head burried in the sand, so that you can't see, try pulling your head out of where the sun don't shine so you can look around and see what reality is all about.
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
"Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...igro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt
What we have for sure...
Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
It means "PULL" the teams out!
Thank you for using common sense. Have a nice day...
I'm going to keep reposting this until it sinks in...
How many times do I have to refutt the obvious lie that Silverstein ordered the building to be brought down?
"This may be true, but it does not give a successful analogy for the collapse. The load carrying members, and thus those which must be overcome in order to progress the collapse, are the central core and perimeter columns. The floors add little to the vertical strength."
You are right. The analogy still applies because the trusses RIPPED what was left of the core in one building apart. (Remember, the core was also damaged by the planes impact) You can clearly see the antenna fall a moment before the building fell. Since as you point out the core was designed for vertical load ALL the floors above it fell on the strongest floor left. The "Pancake" continued from there.
The top of the other building fell over so it's safe to say the core was compromised creating the same effect I mentioned.
Surely this is a possiblility given the evidence.
You are right. The analogy still applies because the trusses RIPPED what was left of the core in one building apart. (Remember, the core was also damaged by the planes impact) You can clearly see the antenna fall a moment before the building fell. Since as you point out the core was designed for vertical load ALL the floors above it fell on the strongest floor left. The "Pancake" continued from there.
The top of the other building fell over so it's safe to say the core was compromised creating the same effect I mentioned.
Surely this is a possiblility given the evidence.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Dr David Ray Griffin
It is now a matter of historical fact - members of the US government were complicit in the mass murder of their citizens to implement a political agenda. Those who wish to postpone the general awareness of this now historical fact by the use repetitive obfuscatory drivel should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
150+ 9/11 Smoking Guns Found in the Mainstream Media
35 - 9/11 (6:47 am) - The WTC 7's fire alarm system is placed on "TEST" mode for an eight hour period for "maintenance or other testing" in which any alarms that are received from the system are not shown on the operator’s display and are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored.
"Finding 2.25: The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7 sent to the monitoring company only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the location of the fire within the building. From the alarm system monitor service view, the building had only one zone, “AREA 1.” The building fire alarm system was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at 6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Ordinarily, this is requested when maintenance or other testing is being performed on the system, so that any alarms that are received from the system are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored. NIST was told by the monitoring company that for systems placed in the TEST condition, alarm signals are not shown on the operator’s display, but records of the alarm are recorded into the history file."
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
Dr David Ray Griffin
It is now a matter of historical fact - members of the US government were complicit in the mass murder of their citizens to implement a political agenda. Those who wish to postpone the general awareness of this now historical fact by the use repetitive obfuscatory drivel should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
150+ 9/11 Smoking Guns Found in the Mainstream Media
35 - 9/11 (6:47 am) - The WTC 7's fire alarm system is placed on "TEST" mode for an eight hour period for "maintenance or other testing" in which any alarms that are received from the system are not shown on the operator’s display and are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored.
"Finding 2.25: The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7 sent to the monitoring company only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the location of the fire within the building. From the alarm system monitor service view, the building had only one zone, “AREA 1.” The building fire alarm system was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at 6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Ordinarily, this is requested when maintenance or other testing is being performed on the system, so that any alarms that are received from the system are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored. NIST was told by the monitoring company that for systems placed in the TEST condition, alarm signals are not shown on the operator’s display, but records of the alarm are recorded into the history file."
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
From Common Sense
"because the trusses RIPPED what was left of the core in one building apart."
The application of common sense or obfuscatory drivel? -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Dr David Ray Griffin
There were many aware that building 7 was to come down at the time so it would be logical to assume there was good reason for this awareness yet NIST cannot offer a reason for its collapse. What were those at the scene aware of that NIST is not?
Maybe NIST should have asked Silverstein eh.
41 - "In four separate WTC Task Force interviews, firefighter Scott Holowach, paramedic Steven Pilla, Lieutenant William Ryan, and firefighter Frank Sweeney, all say they were waiting around for the WTC 7 to collapse."
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
"because the trusses RIPPED what was left of the core in one building apart."
The application of common sense or obfuscatory drivel? -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Dr David Ray Griffin
There were many aware that building 7 was to come down at the time so it would be logical to assume there was good reason for this awareness yet NIST cannot offer a reason for its collapse. What were those at the scene aware of that NIST is not?
Maybe NIST should have asked Silverstein eh.
41 - "In four separate WTC Task Force interviews, firefighter Scott Holowach, paramedic Steven Pilla, Lieutenant William Ryan, and firefighter Frank Sweeney, all say they were waiting around for the WTC 7 to collapse."
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
QUOTE (brian+Dec 29 2005, 10:14 PM)
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Dr David Ray Griffin
It is now a matter of historical fact - members of the US government were complicit in the mass murder of their citizens to implement a political agenda. Those who wish to postpone the general awareness of this now historical fact by the use repetitive obfuscatory drivel should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
150+ 9/11 Smoking Guns Found in the Mainstream Media
35 - 9/11 (6:47 am) - The WTC 7's fire alarm system is placed on "TEST" mode for an eight hour period for "maintenance or other testing" in which any alarms that are received from the system are not shown on the operator’s display and are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored.
"Finding 2.25: The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7 sent to the monitoring company only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the location of the fire within the building. From the alarm system monitor service view, the building had only one zone, “AREA 1.” The building fire alarm system was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at 6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Ordinarily, this is requested when maintenance or other testing is being performed on the system, so that any alarms that are received from the system are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored. NIST was told by the monitoring company that for systems placed in the TEST condition, alarm signals are not shown on the operator’s display, but records of the alarm are recorded into the history file."
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
February 05, 2005
Like most people my opinion of flying saucers and aliens was programmed by the mass media.
I thought they were possible but highly unlikely and speculative.
Now I know better, thanks to Dr. Stephen Greer's book "Disclosure: Military and Government Witnesses Reveal the Greatest Secrets in Modern History." (2001) His web site is www.disclosureproject.org
Stephen Greer is a country doctor from North Carolina who has a wife, four children, a dog and a faith in American values. Since 1992, he has collected video and written testimony from some 400 retired members of the U.S. military, intelligence and aeronautics industry including Presidential advisors, generals, pilots and two astronauts many of whom had Top-Secret clearance.
The gist of this overwhelming evidence is that every year we have thousands of visits from UFOs, which are tracked on radar at speeds ranging from 5000 to 20,000 mph. There are also thousands of signals reaching the earth from outer space.
http://www.savethemales.ca/000798.html
Well if a doctor says it and writes a book it must be true! WOW, he even has a web site! It must be true now! I don't know why they bother with those pesky scientiific journals. I mean why peer review when you can take everyone and their mothers word?
Brian, some day you'll grow up and realize people lie to make money. And it's not just the government.
Dr David Ray Griffin
It is now a matter of historical fact - members of the US government were complicit in the mass murder of their citizens to implement a political agenda. Those who wish to postpone the general awareness of this now historical fact by the use repetitive obfuscatory drivel should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
150+ 9/11 Smoking Guns Found in the Mainstream Media
35 - 9/11 (6:47 am) - The WTC 7's fire alarm system is placed on "TEST" mode for an eight hour period for "maintenance or other testing" in which any alarms that are received from the system are not shown on the operator’s display and are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored.
"Finding 2.25: The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7 sent to the monitoring company only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the location of the fire within the building. From the alarm system monitor service view, the building had only one zone, “AREA 1.” The building fire alarm system was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at 6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Ordinarily, this is requested when maintenance or other testing is being performed on the system, so that any alarms that are received from the system are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored. NIST was told by the monitoring company that for systems placed in the TEST condition, alarm signals are not shown on the operator’s display, but records of the alarm are recorded into the history file."
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
February 05, 2005
Like most people my opinion of flying saucers and aliens was programmed by the mass media.
I thought they were possible but highly unlikely and speculative.
Now I know better, thanks to Dr. Stephen Greer's book "Disclosure: Military and Government Witnesses Reveal the Greatest Secrets in Modern History." (2001) His web site is www.disclosureproject.org
Stephen Greer is a country doctor from North Carolina who has a wife, four children, a dog and a faith in American values. Since 1992, he has collected video and written testimony from some 400 retired members of the U.S. military, intelligence and aeronautics industry including Presidential advisors, generals, pilots and two astronauts many of whom had Top-Secret clearance.
The gist of this overwhelming evidence is that every year we have thousands of visits from UFOs, which are tracked on radar at speeds ranging from 5000 to 20,000 mph. There are also thousands of signals reaching the earth from outer space.
http://www.savethemales.ca/000798.html
Well if a doctor says it and writes a book it must be true! WOW, he even has a web site! It must be true now! I don't know why they bother with those pesky scientiific journals. I mean why peer review when you can take everyone and their mothers word?
Brian, some day you'll grow up and realize people lie to make money. And it's not just the government.
QUOTE
From Larry, 
I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.
I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.
OK now lets see if we can get into the physics, Arthur, Phony, I mean "Common Sense" Reality check and yesididit" it's time to put your thinking caps on and pay attention
No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns".
BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones
"Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location"
"Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck"
One of the things I like about that picture of Jones is that all revealing GRIN on his face. It's telling his colleges and others "Oh come-on, who do you think your fooling"
But Jones is just one of many, and it's not about taking his word for it, just because he's a creadbile Phd. with an extensive background in physics, but more importantly it's because ALL THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS WHAT HE'S SAYING.
You see contrary to the idiotic statement made by (phony-Common Sense) you should never put all your trust in someone just because they have more knowledge than you, if that was the case, then all these phony balony's like "Common sense", etc. would be compelled to put their trust in Jones.
It's called "Hypocrisy" He says we should trust in people with more knowledge on one side of his mouth, but then when it comes to Jones, who obviously has more knowledge in physics and structural engineering in his little finger than "Common Sense" Reality check, yesididit and our other mentally disturbe buddy Arthur have in their whole worlds, they don't listen to him.
Not that I'm encouraging anyone to trust in anyone blindly, but just to emphasize the hypocrisy that seems to be a way of life for some people.
Never the less. We shouldn't trust people blindly, but use what is called dicernment. In fact the problems that some of those little boys had, who got molested by their priests is that their mommy's blindly trusted in those wolves in sheeps clothing.
When your doctor wants to perform an operation on you, then obviously your pretty stuck, but if you dicern something isn't right then you shouldn't blindly trust in him, but rather "get a second opinion"
And here we are with 9/11, the neo/con nazi's which include the democrats who go along with it have sold the public a bill of goods, that is an obvious lie, and just because they have a little more knowledge at some of these things doesn't mean we should trust in them.
I'm a fair chess player, and if I talk with a senior grandmaster about complicated openings and strategies chances are he's correct, because he's far more advanced in his knowledge, but if the same grandmaster tries to tell me that black always moves first, or that rooks move diagonal then I know he's wrong, no matter how much more knowledge he has than myself.
When it comes to the bible, God Himself tells us all to "Not trust in man" in fact Jeremiah 17:5 says "Cursed is the man who trusts in man"
Final point "THINK FOR YOURSELF" and seek wisdom from within. If you can't see something TRY OPENING YOUR EYES.
Or better put, if your like the ignorant sheople on this board with your head burried in the sand, so that you can't see, try pulling your head out of where the sun don't shine so you can look around and see what reality is all about.
Common sense said
You are right. The analogy still applies because the trusses RIPPED what was left of the core in one building apart. (Remember, the core was also damaged by the planes impact) You can clearly see the antenna fall a moment before the building fell. Since as you point out the core was designed for vertical load ALL the floors above it fell on the strongest floor left. The "Pancake" continued from there.
The top of the other building fell over so it's safe to say the core was compromised creating the same effect I mentioned.
Surely this is a possibility given the evidence.
If you had used the term storey instead of floor I could agree with you when you say "ALL the floors above it fell on the strongest floor left." But if you do mean floors then I disagree, for the reason that the upper section would not fit inside the lower section.
So if the core was compromised prior to collapse initiation, how was this done? In what areas and to what extent? Clearly it was not a result of collapse if it happened prior to initiation.
Aircraft collision damage would be limited to the close area around impact, and would not extend far into the lower section
I would also ask, again, how it was possible for this "thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end" to exert a pulling force sufficient to deflect the outer columns by 55" as postulated in the NIST report? And also as you postulate rip apart the core columns?
Surely these two 1" bolts even in double shear would fail if subject to such a load, especially when it can be argued that they would have been at a higher temperature than the perimeter columns, and certainly those affixed to the core would be in the highest temperature zone.
How also was it possible for the floors to exert an inward pulling force on the walls and an outward pulling force on the core columns contrary to what would be expected.
Also if the antennae fell indicating a failure of the core at some point,( the area of aircraft damage?) caused by the force transmitted through the floor beams, then this would have immediately relieved the force and it would not then be present to cause distortion and failure of the perimeter columns. It was, after all, this force which NIST identified as a crucial part of collapse initiation.
Metamars, I tried to respond to your points on heat transfer but after writing it, I lost it somewhere in the ether. I'll get back to you shortly, probably tomorrow.
G
You are right. The analogy still applies because the trusses RIPPED what was left of the core in one building apart. (Remember, the core was also damaged by the planes impact) You can clearly see the antenna fall a moment before the building fell. Since as you point out the core was designed for vertical load ALL the floors above it fell on the strongest floor left. The "Pancake" continued from there.
The top of the other building fell over so it's safe to say the core was compromised creating the same effect I mentioned.
Surely this is a possibility given the evidence.
If you had used the term storey instead of floor I could agree with you when you say "ALL the floors above it fell on the strongest floor left." But if you do mean floors then I disagree, for the reason that the upper section would not fit inside the lower section.
So if the core was compromised prior to collapse initiation, how was this done? In what areas and to what extent? Clearly it was not a result of collapse if it happened prior to initiation.
Aircraft collision damage would be limited to the close area around impact, and would not extend far into the lower section
I would also ask, again, how it was possible for this "thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end" to exert a pulling force sufficient to deflect the outer columns by 55" as postulated in the NIST report? And also as you postulate rip apart the core columns?
Surely these two 1" bolts even in double shear would fail if subject to such a load, especially when it can be argued that they would have been at a higher temperature than the perimeter columns, and certainly those affixed to the core would be in the highest temperature zone.
How also was it possible for the floors to exert an inward pulling force on the walls and an outward pulling force on the core columns contrary to what would be expected.
Also if the antennae fell indicating a failure of the core at some point,( the area of aircraft damage?) caused by the force transmitted through the floor beams, then this would have immediately relieved the force and it would not then be present to cause distortion and failure of the perimeter columns. It was, after all, this force which NIST identified as a crucial part of collapse initiation.
Metamars, I tried to respond to your points on heat transfer but after writing it, I lost it somewhere in the ether. I'll get back to you shortly, probably tomorrow.
G
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.