QUOTE
Since I'm a confessed bribe accepter and what people call bible nut, you're more than welcome to throw everything I say in the trash as total nonsense,
For my part I did this many pages ago.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since I'm a confessed bribe accepter and what people call bible nut, you're more than welcome to throw everything I say in the trash as total nonsense, |
For my part I did this many pages ago.
but on the other hand a useful statement could even be found in a rotten scum bag like myself,
I cannot for the life of me think of a reason to believe anything that comes from you.
QUOTE
mostly because my eyes are on the situation and I have information about what happened.
Now we are to believe that steve has insider info about the 9/11 attacks.
Let me guess, it is all foretold somewhere in the Bible, or,,, the Lord actually told him all this info in a dream, or ,,, his pastor was told by the Lord.
Metamars,
Please, please, please give me a break. Most of you are here for the same reason I am. I read this from another liberal forum. So don't lecture me about this being a Physics forum. A scumbag name "Valis" from the "Awoken Research Group" (http://valis.cjb.cc/) saw an opportunity to take advantage of a_ht's post honestly admitting he worked for the NIST and posted this site all over the liberal forums on or about 10/11. No doubt to draw attention to his site. Low and behold you become a member the same day... Everyone piles in the truck from Pravda.ru or gnn.tv and now here you are.
Here we have Steve, A con artist, saying hes interested in the physics of the "FREE-FALL SPEED FACTOR" when all he has is an internet web site saying it's FREE-FALL. Did he check the evidence sceptically? Of course hes going to say so but the fact is if he did he would have noticed this...
Why is there debris falling faster than the building if the buildings falling at free fall?
Obviously theres little physics being done here. Not even common sense. That's why I'm here. 
And yet the 9/11 sites say
"On 9/11, by coincidence, three such buildings collapsed in ten to fifteen seconds, almost freefall speed. In other words, if you dropped a brick from the top of the World Trade Center it would have taken about that time to hit the ground."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html
I just proved they LIE! That is unless each piece of steel had a rocket pointing to the floor.
I moderated more than one forum so I know how this works. People message their buddies to attack anyone with another view. That doesn't bother me because people always seem to know the truth.
I bet RC is the only person left who really knows physics still reading this thread.
This is NOT about influencing media! This is about covering up a MURDER! BIG DIFFERENCE. You keep wanting to believe this is about backing the president or political spin. THIS IS MURDER. You're saying ALL the people in the press ALL AROUND THE WORLD don't have the morals to distinguish between the murder of 3000 people and politics.
And when I talk about foreign press I mean press and not books. Someone in France started this whole thing suggesting planes didn't even hit the WTC. The hole was to small he said. Heh!
Please, please, please give me a break. Most of you are here for the same reason I am. I read this from another liberal forum. So don't lecture me about this being a Physics forum. A scumbag name "Valis" from the "Awoken Research Group" (http://valis.cjb.cc/) saw an opportunity to take advantage of a_ht's post honestly admitting he worked for the NIST and posted this site all over the liberal forums on or about 10/11. No doubt to draw attention to his site. Low and behold you become a member the same day... Everyone piles in the truck from Pravda.ru or gnn.tv and now here you are.
Here we have Steve, A con artist, saying hes interested in the physics of the "FREE-FALL SPEED FACTOR" when all he has is an internet web site saying it's FREE-FALL. Did he check the evidence sceptically? Of course hes going to say so but the fact is if he did he would have noticed this...
Why is there debris falling faster than the building if the buildings falling at free fall?
Obviously theres little physics being done here. Not even common sense. That's why I'm here. And yet the 9/11 sites say
"On 9/11, by coincidence, three such buildings collapsed in ten to fifteen seconds, almost freefall speed. In other words, if you dropped a brick from the top of the World Trade Center it would have taken about that time to hit the ground."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html
I just proved they LIE! That is unless each piece of steel had a rocket pointing to the floor.
I moderated more than one forum so I know how this works. People message their buddies to attack anyone with another view. That doesn't bother me because people always seem to know the truth.
I bet RC is the only person left who really knows physics still reading this thread.
This is NOT about influencing media! This is about covering up a MURDER! BIG DIFFERENCE. You keep wanting to believe this is about backing the president or political spin. THIS IS MURDER. You're saying ALL the people in the press ALL AROUND THE WORLD don't have the morals to distinguish between the murder of 3000 people and politics.
And when I talk about foreign press I mean press and not books. Someone in France started this whole thing suggesting planes didn't even hit the WTC. The hole was to small he said. Heh!
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 2 2006, 06:52 AM)
Somehow... I'm thinking that Schneibster (and his crew) are just NOT GETTING IT?
Let's take a poll.
Who (in their RIGHT MIND) want's (sic) to 'associate' themselves with the philosophy of the likes of 'The Schneibster' ???
YID ???
Adoucette ???
I do not know if I would like any philosophy put forward by the man Foxx. However he and I do share a common belief that the attacks of 9/11 were from fanatic Islamic terrorists who hijacked planes , crashed 3 of them into buildings and that the result was the destruction of several office buildings and a loss of 3000 lives.
He also displays a knowledge of physics I find appealing.
On the other hand I absolutely know that I do not subscribe to your or steve's literal interpretation of the Bible's books or your speculation that the administration of the USA(or a shadow world gov't) planned and caused the attacks and the resultant death and destruction.
You display an arrogance that I find unappealing.
The CT's most common attribute is a deep desire to pin mass murder on GWB and/or the neo-cons in charge south of the 49th. In this you seem to be as dogged and dogmatic as those same neo-cons were in pinning evil intent on Saddam. How ironic.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 2 2006, 11:23 PM)
You can read about it here and they have the paper:
http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Heritage/Star23Nov1963/
I do not believe Oliver Stone’s version of the conspiracy or the Warren Commissions lone gunman.
Except that the STAR says it WASN'T published by NOON.
They debunk the whole thing, or were they in on it too????
Global Conspiracy Batman!
The Star’s reporting of the assassination
Bob Cotton, Chief Reporter of the Christchurch Star, says that following the release of JFK, the Star received numerous requests from investigative writers, journalists and authors in the US for copies of the pages of the November 1963 issue. Some conspiracy theorists have made special trips to Christchurch to interview him and there have even been suggestions that the Star company was involved. These theories, however, are based on inaccurate assumptions about the Star newspaper's production.
Bob Cotton was a reporter at the paper at the time and can recall clearly the events of November 1963. He says that even in 1963 global communication was fast and effective everywhere and an assassination of a US President meant that everything and everyone on the Star worked doubly quick. News then came by AAP and various wire services which would have been competing to get the news out to their subscribers. Photographs were usually wired to Australia, then to Auckland and thence to Christchurch. This time, to get the photographs early, some of the geographical links were by-passed through technical ingenuity at the Star. Even so the paper would not have been published until 1.30 pm or 2.15 - 2.30 pm depending on the edition. Bob Cotton says that the Star was never published in the morning during his time on the newspaper (from 1958).
Bob Cotton also explains that every newspaper has a large store of biographical material and says that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a stranger to the media. Information on him would have been readily available in US newspapers and media offices and would have been sent out quickly. In 1959 there had been much coverage in newspapers about young men defecting to the Soviet Union and Oswald's defection had been covered in detail in The Washington Post, The Washington Evening Star and The New York Times. Again it was widely reported when Oswald, now with a Russian wife and child, returned to the United States in 1962. The portrait of him in the Star had appeared in The Fort Worth Press on 16 November 1963.
Arthur
http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Heritage/Star23Nov1963/
I do not believe Oliver Stone’s version of the conspiracy or the Warren Commissions lone gunman.
Except that the STAR says it WASN'T published by NOON.
They debunk the whole thing, or were they in on it too????
Global Conspiracy Batman!
The Star’s reporting of the assassination
Bob Cotton, Chief Reporter of the Christchurch Star, says that following the release of JFK, the Star received numerous requests from investigative writers, journalists and authors in the US for copies of the pages of the November 1963 issue. Some conspiracy theorists have made special trips to Christchurch to interview him and there have even been suggestions that the Star company was involved. These theories, however, are based on inaccurate assumptions about the Star newspaper's production.
Bob Cotton was a reporter at the paper at the time and can recall clearly the events of November 1963. He says that even in 1963 global communication was fast and effective everywhere and an assassination of a US President meant that everything and everyone on the Star worked doubly quick. News then came by AAP and various wire services which would have been competing to get the news out to their subscribers. Photographs were usually wired to Australia, then to Auckland and thence to Christchurch. This time, to get the photographs early, some of the geographical links were by-passed through technical ingenuity at the Star. Even so the paper would not have been published until 1.30 pm or 2.15 - 2.30 pm depending on the edition. Bob Cotton says that the Star was never published in the morning during his time on the newspaper (from 1958).
Bob Cotton also explains that every newspaper has a large store of biographical material and says that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a stranger to the media. Information on him would have been readily available in US newspapers and media offices and would have been sent out quickly. In 1959 there had been much coverage in newspapers about young men defecting to the Soviet Union and Oswald's defection had been covered in detail in The Washington Post, The Washington Evening Star and The New York Times. Again it was widely reported when Oswald, now with a Russian wife and child, returned to the United States in 1962. The portrait of him in the Star had appeared in The Fort Worth Press on 16 November 1963.
Arthur
Half-wit, dim-wit and nit-wit, you know who you are.
Trying to run away like a scared chicken avoiding the CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE only confirms where your coming from.
And yes, I could be the worse scumbag in the world, but what does that have to do with the EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES ON 9/11???
You see blaming your stupidity on me isn't gonna cut it. No matter how much of a jerk I may or may not be has nothing to do with it. In fact even if I was Charles Manson or Adolph Hitler, or WORSE, cOmMoN sEnSe or arthur, or yesdidit, it wouldn't make the evidence go away.
Most reasonable people know that I didn't make those videos, but found them during my extensive research on the Internet, so calling me a scum bag, con man or whatever you like WON'T MAKE THE EVIDENCE GO AWAY.
By the way the videos and information on the links I sent include physical analysis by PhD's.'s with more knowledge in physics and science than all the people on this board put together, so no matter what kinds of BS labels you want to put on me, THE EVIDENCE IS CONCLUSIVE.
The only issue is your OBVIOUS DENIAL OF THE TRUTH.
But for entertainment purposes I guess some of the people don't mind watching the circus monkeys dance around the issues and pretend to have intelligence, so I guess you have your purpose on this board.
However, it's getting pretty TIRESOME listening to the same old CRAP and disingenuous, phony baloney pretending that you guys have one scintilla of interest in the truth.
Trying to run away like a scared chicken avoiding the CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE only confirms where your coming from.
And yes, I could be the worse scumbag in the world, but what does that have to do with the EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES ON 9/11???
You see blaming your stupidity on me isn't gonna cut it. No matter how much of a jerk I may or may not be has nothing to do with it. In fact even if I was Charles Manson or Adolph Hitler, or WORSE, cOmMoN sEnSe or arthur, or yesdidit, it wouldn't make the evidence go away.
Most reasonable people know that I didn't make those videos, but found them during my extensive research on the Internet, so calling me a scum bag, con man or whatever you like WON'T MAKE THE EVIDENCE GO AWAY.
By the way the videos and information on the links I sent include physical analysis by PhD's.'s with more knowledge in physics and science than all the people on this board put together, so no matter what kinds of BS labels you want to put on me, THE EVIDENCE IS CONCLUSIVE.
The only issue is your OBVIOUS DENIAL OF THE TRUTH.
But for entertainment purposes I guess some of the people don't mind watching the circus monkeys dance around the issues and pretend to have intelligence, so I guess you have your purpose on this board.
However, it's getting pretty TIRESOME listening to the same old CRAP and disingenuous, phony baloney pretending that you guys have one scintilla of interest in the truth.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2006, 12:09 AM)
They debunk the whole thing, or were they in on it too????
Global Conspiracy Batman!
Who are you calling Global Conspiracy Batman? I do not believe the newspaper story is a conspiracy and next time I will make it clear so even an idiot can understand.
QUOTE
You're saying ALL the people in the press ALL AROUND THE WORLD don't have the morals to distinguish between the murder of 3000 people and politics.
Once again you have mis-characterized what I've written. Furthermore, your statement glosses over the difference between editors who control what actually gets printed, and reporters. You also gloss over the difference between an investigation, and a conclusion. As you have previously glossed over the difference between official statements of NYPD and the rank and file, and additionally have glossed over the difference between official statements of NYFD, and the rank and file, it's not surprising that you would repeat this pattern. After all, a priori it makes most sense to presume that the Zogby poll averages apply to the rank and file, which would directly contradict your previous straw men. If similar percentages held for the world's reporters (i.e., 49% believe in MIHOP of LIHOP, and 66% believe we need a reinvestigation), that would also demolish the statement I quote above, which you are stating is what I mean.
Regarding an intestigation (where the results might conceivably back the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tales, or not):
Since you listen to AAR, you may have heard Randi Rhodes claim that she gets word quite often of reporters filing great stories that never get printed.
You have not answered the question of why there has not EVEN been any media investigation which would knock on a few doors of engineering profs, or even slip them a couple thousand dollars as an "honorarium", to do an analysis of the WTC collapses that could have put the lie to BZ soon after it came out, and quite likely the NIST Fairy Tale, afterwards.
A newspaper could have afforded a $20,000 investigation. I cannot.
Apparently, you would have us believe that I believe that of all the reporters in the world, not a single one of them had the "ethics" to suggest such a thing to their editors. Since the last I checked, that would include reporters in the Moslem world, this flies in the face of common sense. *
Are you sure you've chosen a suitable name?
========================================
I completely agree that many people who believe in US government conspiracy don't contribute anything wrt quantitative physics, even if they'd like to, and furthermore many do a bad job even with the non-physics, or what they presume they know about physics qualitatively.
However, you taking that as some sort of invitation to mimic them just spams this board with more crap. You could have chosen, e.g., to call a straw man argument presented by a CT'er exactly that. Instead, you spam this thread with not only lots of straw man arguments, but pathetically weak ones, as I have recently pointed out. You have also lied, again as I recently pointed out.
If, OTOH you point out a real lie or mistatement of fact on this board, or in a reference somebody gives, that is quite legitimate and of value. Nobody is asking you not to do so.
Perhaps in the new year, you will take a higher road.
* I have to admit, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why some newspaper in Iran or Malaysia has not commissioned some such study. It is not reasonable to expect their media to have succumbed to US censorship. So, lack of out-of-the-box thinking may be a factor.
Another factor wrt the WTC collapses is that somebody had to break the ice. For me, that was primarily Jim Hoffman, though I had been exposed to Hufshmid's phony baloney 8.4 second collapse time nonsense earlier. In spite of my techinical background, I had not been overly critical of the government's version of collapse until roughly a year and some months ago, when I heard Hoffman interviewed on Guns and Butter. Of course, if I had seen a video of the WTC 7 collapse, or the following picture, in 2001, I would not have needed Hoffman to realize that something is very wrong with a gravity driven collapse scenario.
The above image can be seen at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp2.html
( 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html )
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 3 2006, 12:34 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2006, 12:09 AM)
They debunk the whole thing, or were they in on it too????
Global Conspiracy Batman!
Who are you calling Global Conspiracy Batman? I do not believe the newspaper story is a conspiracy and next time I will make it clear so even an idiot can understand.
The paper is real, the point is it wasn't published by NOON.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 2 2006, 03:48 AM)
RC You've always been one of my favorite posters. It's a pure shame our reptilian brains (Not you) have taken over here. I've always respected your wish to stay out of this and will continue to do so. I've always tried to drawn conclutions from evidence and not belief so I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. (At the risk of giving some here "Chum" I'd like to say we could have been... Mates!) If there is somewhere you think I haven't been unbias please feel free to point it out. I repect your opinion.
Hi Common Sense! Sorry for the delayed response to you (and "brian" below), and for sounding so rushed. My time is in short supply of late! Now, as to any possible bias in your posts or anyone else's, I'll leave everyone to sort those aspects out for themselves, mate. Only the physics really 'speaks' to me....besides, as is now well known to many, I am basically a LONER and jealously independent, and so take the PRUDENT APPROACH that EVERYONE is biased/erring until proven otherwise by OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. So it is more likely for me to be picking up on your (and others') PHYSICS matters than any obvious/unobvious BIAS matters....mainly because I tend to 'skip' all that INSUBSTANTIAL/SUBJECTIVE useless stuff IRRESPECTIVE of which 'side' it comes from, you included! hehehe....sorry, but EVERYONE'S fair game when it comes to me ignoring non-physics stuff. So if you post any of it yourself, then don't be expecting me to read it or point any potential bias out to you...because I ignore such posts from EVERYONE. I do my best to concentrate ONLY on the obvious physics in ANY GIVEN SCENARIO...which scenario in THIS case, for ME at least, is ONLY the TOWER COLLAPSE ASPECTS....nothing more, nothing less....which reminds me.....the TOWERS.........
brian has just questioned my own assessment of the EFFECTIVE structural integrity of same; thusly:
It's a pure shame our reptilian brains (Not you) have taken over here. I've always respected your wish to stay out of this and will continue to do so. I've always tried to drawn conclutions from evidence and not belief so I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. (At the risk of giving some here "Chum" I'd like to say we could have been... Mates!) If there is somewhere you think I haven't been unbias please feel free to point it out. I repect your opinion.Hi Common Sense! Sorry for the delayed response to you (and "brian" below), and for sounding so rushed. My time is in short supply of late! Now, as to any possible bias in your posts or anyone else's, I'll leave everyone to sort those aspects out for themselves, mate. Only the physics really 'speaks' to me....besides, as is now well known to many, I am basically a LONER and jealously independent, and so take the PRUDENT APPROACH that EVERYONE is biased/erring until proven otherwise by OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. So it is more likely for me to be picking up on your (and others') PHYSICS matters than any obvious/unobvious BIAS matters....mainly because I tend to 'skip' all that INSUBSTANTIAL/SUBJECTIVE useless stuff IRRESPECTIVE of which 'side' it comes from, you included! hehehe....sorry, but EVERYONE'S fair game when it comes to me ignoring non-physics stuff. So if you post any of it yourself, then don't be expecting me to read it or point any potential bias out to you...because I ignore such posts from EVERYONE. I do my best to concentrate ONLY on the obvious physics in ANY GIVEN SCENARIO...which scenario in THIS case, for ME at least, is ONLY the TOWER COLLAPSE ASPECTS....nothing more, nothing less....which reminds me.....the TOWERS.........
brian has just questioned my own assessment of the EFFECTIVE structural integrity of same; thusly:
QUOTE (brian+Jan 2 2006, 04:08 PM)
Reality Check gives us this below -
"46 yrs of almost constant research/experiment/problem-solving/trouble-shooting in everything from ditch-digging to aero-space, from law to materials technology etc etc etc. has enabled me to have a wide-ranging appreciation for the actual realities as well as the theories in most real-world situations."
Reality Check's "constant research" led him to be one of the first on this thread to state the towers were hollow tubes, no central core so giving the pancake theory plausability.
Did Reality Check apologise for his misleading post? Did the factual information he was given in response to his misinformation have any appreciable effect on his understanding of "the actual realities" of the situation?
But this ignores the complete assessment/connotations, as follows [my highlighting]....
"46 yrs of almost constant research/experiment/problem-solving/trouble-shooting in everything from ditch-digging to aero-space, from law to materials technology etc etc etc. has enabled me to have a wide-ranging appreciation for the actual realities as well as the theories in most real-world situations."
Reality Check's "constant research" led him to be one of the first on this thread to state the towers were hollow tubes, no central core so giving the pancake theory plausability.
Did Reality Check apologise for his misleading post? Did the factual information he was given in response to his misinformation have any appreciable effect on his understanding of "the actual realities" of the situation?
But this ignores the complete assessment/connotations, as follows [my highlighting]....
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 15 2005, 12:25 AM)
Hello everyone.
Now let’s see...hmmmm...
(1) A steel frame skyscraper which, UNLIKE ALL PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, used ONLY an outer ‘SHELL’ of steel and glass to essentially produce a ‘square tube’ from whose ‘walls’ were suspended floor slabs fixed at their edges by welds/rivets etc. to that ‘exo-skeleton’ framework;
(2) Those floor slabs, UNLIKE PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, had LITTLE or NO CONTIGUOUS CENTRAL SUPPORT FRAMEWORK/CONCRETE-COLUMNS running from foundations to roof;
.
Note what I said about "contiguity" and "concrete"...and the "little" or lack thereof in the supposed 'core'. It was and still is my contention that THERE WAS EFFECTIVELY NO "INDEPENDENT/SOLID CORE" as such, merely a VULNERABLE lacework 'inner-tube' of not-properly/sufficiently cross-braced steel elements DEPENDENT ON TOO MANY OTHER NON-INTEGRAL/PIECEMEAL FACTORS for their so-called stability/integrity in a catastrophe...factors which a REAL CORE STRUCTURE would NEVER be dependent on BY DESIGN/BULK/CONTIGUITY/COMPRESSIVE-AND-TENSIONING-STRENGTH etc...which is obviously something that the tower 'core structures' WERE NOT...mainly because they were mostly AIR, mostly interdependent on 'remote/point connections' instead of CONTIGUOUS-MASS-MOLECULAR-BONDS etc etc....which is ONE of the relevant aspects I pointed out to frater earlier....
Now let’s see...hmmmm...
(1) A steel frame skyscraper which, UNLIKE ALL PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, used ONLY an outer ‘SHELL’ of steel and glass to essentially produce a ‘square tube’ from whose ‘walls’ were suspended floor slabs fixed at their edges by welds/rivets etc. to that ‘exo-skeleton’ framework;
(2) Those floor slabs, UNLIKE PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, had LITTLE or NO CONTIGUOUS CENTRAL SUPPORT FRAMEWORK/CONCRETE-COLUMNS running from foundations to roof;
.
Note what I said about "contiguity" and "concrete"...and the "little" or lack thereof in the supposed 'core'. It was and still is my contention that THERE WAS EFFECTIVELY NO "INDEPENDENT/SOLID CORE" as such, merely a VULNERABLE lacework 'inner-tube' of not-properly/sufficiently cross-braced steel elements DEPENDENT ON TOO MANY OTHER NON-INTEGRAL/PIECEMEAL FACTORS for their so-called stability/integrity in a catastrophe...factors which a REAL CORE STRUCTURE would NEVER be dependent on BY DESIGN/BULK/CONTIGUITY/COMPRESSIVE-AND-TENSIONING-STRENGTH etc...which is obviously something that the tower 'core structures' WERE NOT...mainly because they were mostly AIR, mostly interdependent on 'remote/point connections' instead of CONTIGUOUS-MASS-MOLECULAR-BONDS etc etc....which is ONE of the relevant aspects I pointed out to frater earlier....
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 20 2005, 11:52 PM)
.....
.......
Hi “FRATER PLECTICUS”:
.......
.......
Are you by any chance asserting that that insubstantial tracery of woefully-ductile and deformable/disconnectable steel beams you pictured, which in the event proved nothing more than a readily-collapsable/compressible/fracturable ‘stack’ of glorified trestle-tables, can be compared to the CONTIGUOUS RE-INFORCED CONCRETE ‘spine’ of former, MORE OVERWHELMINGLY ROBUST (as in ability to withstand EXTREME compression/tension/fragmentation stresses) building designs?
I would like to point out that any ‘concrete’ used in the tower design was NEITHER ‘contiguous’ all round and up/down, NOR ‘uniformly re-inforced’ in the usual manner that ensures BOTH COMPRESSION AND TENSION STRENGTH AS WELL AS FRAGMENTATION RESISTENCE; but INSTEAD, in the tower design, was ‘effectively plastered’ AROUND the steel beams; thus making that ‘rendering’ technique highly-vulnerable to cracking/breaking-off-in-lumps due to horrendous acoustical vibrations in the the air/steel beams during the collapse chaos (such ‘vibration destruction’ methods are amply and practically demonstrated every day in industry ‘mechanical-vibration-pulverisation’ methods; as well as in hospitals, where surgeons utilise soundwaves/vibrations to pulverise hard calcifications (kidney-stones/gall stones) during non-invasive surgery).
Anyone who still thinks that a self-evidently-inadequate/unstable-----in the unusual and EXTREME circumstances/loads involved in 9/11 events)-----‘STEEL WICKERWORK’ core structure can IN ANY WAY be compared to a contiguous, uniformly-reinforced-throughout, concrete ‘TALL BUNKER’ core structure, has only to see for themselves that, plain, un-reinforced STONE is used by Nature to hold up even the tallest of her STONE MOUNTAINS against the strongest ‘quakes, with minimal or no ‘compromise/collapse’ resulting. And we can see WHY she might NOT opt for STEEL WICKERWORK as a REPLACEMENT ‘core-design feature’ in future 'mountain-building’.
So let's all use common sense in this regard, instead of wishful thinking....as wishful thinking will not prevent an oh-so-many-ways vulnerable and readily-deformable/-disconnectable ‘wickerwork’ structure from coming down onto your head at the most unexpected of moments (how many of us have had a ‘wickerwork’/’folding’ chair FAIL CATASTROPHICALLY under us after we gained a little too much weight, and so OVERLOADED the chair’s material/connector/construction-design capabilities, heh FRATER? hehehe.
Ciao for now from ‘Down Under’, mateys! And good luck to all genuine participants in this thread.
RealityCheck.
.
And it seems that, considering events, I wasn't the only person to see the obvious inadequacy and EFFECTIVE absence (or should that be INNEFFECTIVE PRESENCE?) of any REAL CORE PERFORMANCE from that inherently unstable/vulnerable stack of glorified trestle tables they called a (haha) 'core' when it came to the crunch, literally. Note the following quote, especially the (by me) highlighted section of the EIGHTH paragraph....concerning what a REAL CORE is SUPPOSED to BE and DO in the worst case scenario for ANY buildings which PREVIOUSLY were constructed with REAL CORES and not false sense of security traceries of some bits of steel and MOSTLY AIR. Read on about these and OTHER WOEFULLY INADEQUATE "FEATURES" of the towers' design/construction....
I live in the US. Just where am I supposed to get a NZ paper? A NZ paper 42 years old? You may be implying here that Prouty is lying about everything wrt the NZ paper. Are you?
I live in the US. Just where am I supposed to get a NZ paper? A NZ paper 42 years old? You may be implying here that Prouty is lying about everything wrt the NZ paper. Are you?
Is there NO LIMIT to what you are willing to believe if it fits your pre-conceived notions?
I have read a fair amount about Fletcher Prouty (prouty.org) , and consider him eminently credible. Having read your pope-ish pronouncements, I put your credibility at 0. Anybody who can explain away the collapse of a perfectly rigid 500+ foot spire by saying "it obviously broke into pieces" may deserve to have negative credibility, if there is such a thing.
Also, you are one of the broken records who keep saying "where is the evidence?".
Even so the paper would not have been published until 1.30 pm or 2.15 - 2.30 pm depending on the edition. Bob Cotton says that the Star was never published in the morning during his time on the newspaper (from 1958).
Hmmmm. So the assassination of a US president would not cause them to push up their publication time by 1.5 hours, is that it? Because Prouty tells us he got his copy by noon. I find that a little hard to believe. Don't you?
Also, not that I know much about the newspaper business, but I thought all major daily papers have a morning edition. The bigger ones may have an afternoon edition, but that is pretty rare.
Consequently, without corroborating testimony from other New Zealanders in a position to know, I don't accept the word of Mr. Cotton over that of Fletcher Prouty. This should be a matter of fact, quite easy to prove/disprove for somebody in New Zealand. And the best way to prove/disprove is NOT to contact a principal at the newspaper in question. The discussion is about censorship/control in foreign media by US interests, remember? Most major newspapers are sold in hundreds of locations, and if they have a home delivery service, one could easily establish morning delivery by talking to any number of thousands of such customers.
Also, according to Cotton, "Some conspiracy theorists have made special trips to Christchurch to interview him"
Wow. So, are we to believe that conspiracy theorists ponied up the time and money for a "special trip" to Christchurch, didn't hear what they wanted to hear, and then just went home with their tale between their legs? Since they were already in New Zealand, one expects they would have corroborated Cotton's candy (
sorry, couldn't resist that) And furthermore, that some of this corroboration (or debunking, if it turns out that Cotton was wrong) would have ended up on the internet.
So, where is all the additional corroboration? Since you found this quote by Cotton, perhaps you can find these other sources. While your credibility with me is 0, you may find enough corroboration to make me believe that Prouty was mistaken.
Finally, Prouty also refers to time differentials of 8 hours. Even if the paper came out at 1:30 pm instead of by 12:00 pm NZ time, you still have not explained away the Star's precognition.
.......
Hi “FRATER PLECTICUS”:
.......
.......
Are you by any chance asserting that that insubstantial tracery of woefully-ductile and deformable/disconnectable steel beams you pictured, which in the event proved nothing more than a readily-collapsable/compressible/fracturable ‘stack’ of glorified trestle-tables, can be compared to the CONTIGUOUS RE-INFORCED CONCRETE ‘spine’ of former, MORE OVERWHELMINGLY ROBUST (as in ability to withstand EXTREME compression/tension/fragmentation stresses) building designs?
I would like to point out that any ‘concrete’ used in the tower design was NEITHER ‘contiguous’ all round and up/down, NOR ‘uniformly re-inforced’ in the usual manner that ensures BOTH COMPRESSION AND TENSION STRENGTH AS WELL AS FRAGMENTATION RESISTENCE; but INSTEAD, in the tower design, was ‘effectively plastered’ AROUND the steel beams; thus making that ‘rendering’ technique highly-vulnerable to cracking/breaking-off-in-lumps due to horrendous acoustical vibrations in the the air/steel beams during the collapse chaos (such ‘vibration destruction’ methods are amply and practically demonstrated every day in industry ‘mechanical-vibration-pulverisation’ methods; as well as in hospitals, where surgeons utilise soundwaves/vibrations to pulverise hard calcifications (kidney-stones/gall stones) during non-invasive surgery).
Anyone who still thinks that a self-evidently-inadequate/unstable-----in the unusual and EXTREME circumstances/loads involved in 9/11 events)-----‘STEEL WICKERWORK’ core structure can IN ANY WAY be compared to a contiguous, uniformly-reinforced-throughout, concrete ‘TALL BUNKER’ core structure, has only to see for themselves that, plain, un-reinforced STONE is used by Nature to hold up even the tallest of her STONE MOUNTAINS against the strongest ‘quakes, with minimal or no ‘compromise/collapse’ resulting. And we can see WHY she might NOT opt for STEEL WICKERWORK as a REPLACEMENT ‘core-design feature’ in future 'mountain-building’.
So let's all use common sense in this regard, instead of wishful thinking....as wishful thinking will not prevent an oh-so-many-ways vulnerable and readily-deformable/-disconnectable ‘wickerwork’ structure from coming down onto your head at the most unexpected of moments (how many of us have had a ‘wickerwork’/’folding’ chair FAIL CATASTROPHICALLY under us after we gained a little too much weight, and so OVERLOADED the chair’s material/connector/construction-design capabilities, heh FRATER? hehehe.
Ciao for now from ‘Down Under’, mateys! And good luck to all genuine participants in this thread.
RealityCheck.
.
And it seems that, considering events, I wasn't the only person to see the obvious inadequacy and EFFECTIVE absence (or should that be INNEFFECTIVE PRESENCE?) of any REAL CORE PERFORMANCE from that inherently unstable/vulnerable stack of glorified trestle tables they called a (haha) 'core' when it came to the crunch, literally. Note the following quote, especially the (by me) highlighted section of the EIGHTH paragraph....concerning what a REAL CORE is SUPPOSED to BE and DO in the worst case scenario for ANY buildings which PREVIOUSLY were constructed with REAL CORES and not false sense of security traceries of some bits of steel and MOSTLY AIR. Read on about these and OTHER WOEFULLY INADEQUATE "FEATURES" of the towers' design/construction....
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 2 2006, 01:16 AM)
That quote by Foxx from Fire Engineering.com was from Jan 2002, you know the one where he left out the bit that was CONTRARY to his position.
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
Fire Engineering Article link
•The impact of the impact. It is accepted that, after the impact, the fires that raged in the WTC towers heated the stressed steel external and core columns that then had to carry redistributed loads resulting from the severing of up to two-thirds of the external columns and an unknown number of the core columns. But how much did the extra stress on the steel reduce its fire resistance? Steel "plasticates"or loses its ability to carry loads in proportion to the temperature to which it is heated. Did the fires in these buildings not have to reach such exceptional temperatures or heat release rates to cause such sudden and spectacular collapses because the steel was also so stressed? If so, should much greater fire safety margins be built into protected steel structures for cases where blast or impact is followed by fire?
•The temperature, extent, and range of the fires. Just how hot and powerful were these fires? Initial estimates suggested that the fires were exceptional, with temperature guesses ranging up to 2,000°F. But modeling and analysis produced for lawyers—not, please note, federal investigators—suggests these were not exceptionally fierce fires. More modeling work on the ventilation and the fuel loads should come up with some more definitive answers. If only the cause but not the effect of these fires was exceptional, there are huge, vital lessons to learn here. Huge, open-plan floor spaces at high-rise or even super high-rise height may be much more vulnerable to fire than planners, code writers, or even fire chiefs currently realize, particularly when suppression systems, such as sprinklers, do not work.
•How inadequate was the fireproofing? The inadequacy of the fireproofing in the WTC is no longer disputed. Inspections by experts throughout the 1990s, including some by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the WTC, show that fireproofing on the floor trusses was thin and nonexistent in places and was peeling away in room-high sheets from the core columns. The key question here is, What effect did this have in inducing the collapse? In 1995, the Port Authority began a fireproofing rehabilitation program, in particular spraying the floor trusses with 11/2 inches of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing where previously layers of just 1/2- or 3/4-inch had been considered sufficient to secure the three-hour fire rating needed to conform to the Class 1A building category provisions of the New York City building and fire code. All the floor trusses of the impact floors in the North Tower had been rehabbed with thicker, new fireproofing by September 11, whereas only one impact floor, the 78th floor, had been rehabbed in the South Tower. Was this one of the factors that enabled the North Tower to remain standing for nearly double the time of the South?
• Where are the fireproofing test results? The Port Authority says it based the rehabbing of the fireproofing on the floor trusses with 11/2 inches of coating on an Underwriters Laboratories test, specifically G805, listed in UL's Fire Resistance Directory. The test was first listed in 1992. If 11/2 inches of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing was necessary to ensure three-hour fireproofing in 1992, why was only 1/2 inch of the same fireproofing material deemed necessary to secure the same fire rating on the same floor trusses in 1970 during construction? Where are the original fireproofing tests for the open-web floor trusses that justified such a thin coating of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing material? An equally urgent question, Where are the deflection/cohesion/adhesion tests for the CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing? When first used in the WTC in 1970, it was a very new product, a last-minute nonasbestos substitute for its asbestos-based precursor, CAFCO Blazeshield D. Were such tests ever done? If not, why not?
• How much of the fireproofing survived impact? Some fire engineers have argued that the CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing, a mineral fiber-based product, would not have survived the impact of the aircraft, so whether it was in place or was adequate before impact is irrelevant. Only deflection/cohesion/adhesion tests of the fireproofing on models of the trusses and columns will give us the answers as to how much fireproofing might have survived in the WTC towers and where. Such studies have huge import. Fire engineers, firefighters, architects, and structural engineers need to know what blast or impact forces—from a bomb, a gas explosion, an earthquake, or an aircraft—different types of fireproofing can withstand. Obviously, fireproofing only stands a chance of protecting steel or means of egress if it is in place when a fire takes hold.
•Column and beam vs. tube. The WTC towers were what is known as tube structures—closely spaced lattice-like columns of steel made up the external walls carrying most of the wind and gravity loads. The WTC towers were undoubtedly strong on the outside, but were they weak and particularly vulnerable inside? Once the aircraft had sliced through the external columns, were the buildings doomed? Would a traditional column-and-beam structure—with more widely spaced steel columns making up the outside walls with steel flange beams supporting the floors throughout the structure to give the building the traditional steel "skeleton"—have withstood such multifloor fires better as the experiences with high-rise fires in Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza and Los Angeles' First Interstate Bank seem to indicate? And if it would have, how would a column-and-beam structure have reacted to the initial impact of the aircraft? Tube structures can be built with much less steel than traditional column-and-beam structures, which is one of their main attractions. But is it too little "body" or mass, particularly with so little concrete, masonry, or cement, to stand up to the committed terrorist?
• Trusses and their connections, primary members. The open-web trusses that were the basis for the floors in the WTC towers spanned distances of up to 60 feet in connecting the external columns to those of the core. Were the trusses or their connections (standard high-tensile field bolts, attached to relatively narrow seat angles with plates welded on top) strong enough to withstand the catenary bending action and the shear on the bolts induced by relatively modest fires, let alone those raging on September 11? Moreover, did the function of the floor trusses in bracing the core and external columns to keep them the requisite distance apart, in equilibrium, make the trusses primary, rather than secondary, members in this design? If so, even without the fires and weakening effect of impact on September 11, how many sets of floor trusses could you have removed from this design without the towers going into terminal and very rapid progressive collapse, as they did that morning?
•Shaft-wall partition system central core. The vast majority of the victims of the WTC attacks on September 11 died because they had no means of escape. They were trapped above the impact floors with the buildings' umbilical cord—the elevators and three sets of stairs—severed below them. The WTC towers included a shaft-wall partition system central core—two layers of gypsum board attached to widely spaced core columns—20 feet off center. The only cement and concrete used in the central core was in the stairs themselves. Would a more traditional central core, with masonry, cement, and concrete as its main components, have survived the impact and fires better? All these elements are known for their blast-, impact-, and fire-resistance properties. Should central cores in high-rise buildings possess the rigidity and durability the name implies?
• Defend in place—surely it is dead. The towers each had three stairways, only one of which, at 54 inches, was considered sufficiently wide to comfortably accommodate two-abreast flows of evacuees. Where firefighters were ascending, there was one flow of evacuees descending and a counterflow of emergency personnel. No one knows how long it would have taken to completely evacuate the towers with such limited stair capacity when fully occupied—six or seven hours is one guess (based on the mass evacuation of February 1993 following the bomb attack). The sorry truth is that the towers were never designed for mass, simultaneous evacuation, yet each time there was a major incident—in 1975 (fire), in 1993 (bomb), and again in 2001 (fire)—that was precisely what was necessary. Even if "defend in place" is an option for fire and other emergency personnel in some instances, if the buildings' occupants have no confidence in it or will not adhere to it, it must be scrapped as an emergency procedure. All high-rise buildings must have adequate means of egress for mass, simultaneous evacuation by all occupants in a set period of time. And in extreme circumstances, such as September 11, occupants do not have six or seven hours. Had the aircraft hit those buildings just one hour later, when the buildings would have been fully occupied, the death toll would have been much, much higher, perhaps between 10,000 and 15,000. The reason is simple: Their capacity to evacuate would have come nowhere near meeting the numbers needed to get out in the time allowed.
• Built-in redundancy to reduce/eliminate the threat of progressive collapse. The WTC towers' collapse was the most extreme and deadly example of progressive collapse ever seen. The failure of one or more floors overloaded the floor or floors below, causing a chain reaction that took only 10 to 12 seconds to complete. Was sufficient redundancy built into the towers' design? The external walls had sufficient redundancy—the ability to redistribute loads to other structural members to prevent failure—as the initial impact proved. But what about inside? What about the open-web floor trusses and core columns? Could the floor trusses and their connections have been more redundant with connections fastening them to the columns at the lower as well as upper chords? Could the core columns have been cross-braced with steel members for additional stability? What difference might this have made, especially for those occupants and rescue personnel trapped in the South Tower? Although it collapsed in less than an hour, one stairwell remained intact and at least two firefighters reached the 78th floor sky lobby. Here, at least, more time could have made all the difference.
If fact a seach of the site reveals no article connecting WTC and Controlled demolition.
I did find this:
From an article about the search for potential survivors and victims:
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...tion%20WTC&p=25
Just minutes earlier, officials were monitoring radio traffic and cellular calls from firefighters and civilians trapped in the basement of Building #7. But with the collapse, also came the end of those calls for help.
I wonder, if as Foxx asserts the damage to WTC 7 was so slight and the fires so minor, how they got trapped?
Arthur
As it turned out under the circumstances, THE OUTER STRUCTURE performed BETTER than the SO-CALLED "CORE" on which much was supposed to depend! Such is the price of false security. And as can be seen from my most recent posts, the 'top' and 'hat truss' structures must have collapsed due to that (haha) 'core' failure beneath them, so that failing so-called 'core' material merely ADDED to the weight/momentum/impulse/impacts on lower floors on the way down...hence the 'pancaking' (but not perfectly coherent/flat across the whole of the floor spaces, of course, because they would be giving way chaotically from their various connections...but essentially so). Anyhow, that's all I have to say about this. Good luck and Happy and Safe New Year for you and yours, everyone!
RealityCheck.
PS: Things will be hotting up in my other physics project soon, so I would appreciate not being 'addressed directly', because I might be delayed in answering and would not wish to unintentionally offend anyone getting the impression I was ignoring them. I will, however, try to keep abreast of the essential PHYSICAL arguments here as best I can with the occasional 'surf through'. Until next time, Ciao and good thinking. RC.
.
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
Fire Engineering Article link
•The impact of the impact. It is accepted that, after the impact, the fires that raged in the WTC towers heated the stressed steel external and core columns that then had to carry redistributed loads resulting from the severing of up to two-thirds of the external columns and an unknown number of the core columns. But how much did the extra stress on the steel reduce its fire resistance? Steel "plasticates"or loses its ability to carry loads in proportion to the temperature to which it is heated. Did the fires in these buildings not have to reach such exceptional temperatures or heat release rates to cause such sudden and spectacular collapses because the steel was also so stressed? If so, should much greater fire safety margins be built into protected steel structures for cases where blast or impact is followed by fire?
•The temperature, extent, and range of the fires. Just how hot and powerful were these fires? Initial estimates suggested that the fires were exceptional, with temperature guesses ranging up to 2,000°F. But modeling and analysis produced for lawyers—not, please note, federal investigators—suggests these were not exceptionally fierce fires. More modeling work on the ventilation and the fuel loads should come up with some more definitive answers. If only the cause but not the effect of these fires was exceptional, there are huge, vital lessons to learn here. Huge, open-plan floor spaces at high-rise or even super high-rise height may be much more vulnerable to fire than planners, code writers, or even fire chiefs currently realize, particularly when suppression systems, such as sprinklers, do not work.
•How inadequate was the fireproofing? The inadequacy of the fireproofing in the WTC is no longer disputed. Inspections by experts throughout the 1990s, including some by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the WTC, show that fireproofing on the floor trusses was thin and nonexistent in places and was peeling away in room-high sheets from the core columns. The key question here is, What effect did this have in inducing the collapse? In 1995, the Port Authority began a fireproofing rehabilitation program, in particular spraying the floor trusses with 11/2 inches of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing where previously layers of just 1/2- or 3/4-inch had been considered sufficient to secure the three-hour fire rating needed to conform to the Class 1A building category provisions of the New York City building and fire code. All the floor trusses of the impact floors in the North Tower had been rehabbed with thicker, new fireproofing by September 11, whereas only one impact floor, the 78th floor, had been rehabbed in the South Tower. Was this one of the factors that enabled the North Tower to remain standing for nearly double the time of the South?
• Where are the fireproofing test results? The Port Authority says it based the rehabbing of the fireproofing on the floor trusses with 11/2 inches of coating on an Underwriters Laboratories test, specifically G805, listed in UL's Fire Resistance Directory. The test was first listed in 1992. If 11/2 inches of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing was necessary to ensure three-hour fireproofing in 1992, why was only 1/2 inch of the same fireproofing material deemed necessary to secure the same fire rating on the same floor trusses in 1970 during construction? Where are the original fireproofing tests for the open-web floor trusses that justified such a thin coating of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing material? An equally urgent question, Where are the deflection/cohesion/adhesion tests for the CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing? When first used in the WTC in 1970, it was a very new product, a last-minute nonasbestos substitute for its asbestos-based precursor, CAFCO Blazeshield D. Were such tests ever done? If not, why not?
• How much of the fireproofing survived impact? Some fire engineers have argued that the CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing, a mineral fiber-based product, would not have survived the impact of the aircraft, so whether it was in place or was adequate before impact is irrelevant. Only deflection/cohesion/adhesion tests of the fireproofing on models of the trusses and columns will give us the answers as to how much fireproofing might have survived in the WTC towers and where. Such studies have huge import. Fire engineers, firefighters, architects, and structural engineers need to know what blast or impact forces—from a bomb, a gas explosion, an earthquake, or an aircraft—different types of fireproofing can withstand. Obviously, fireproofing only stands a chance of protecting steel or means of egress if it is in place when a fire takes hold.
•Column and beam vs. tube. The WTC towers were what is known as tube structures—closely spaced lattice-like columns of steel made up the external walls carrying most of the wind and gravity loads. The WTC towers were undoubtedly strong on the outside, but were they weak and particularly vulnerable inside? Once the aircraft had sliced through the external columns, were the buildings doomed? Would a traditional column-and-beam structure—with more widely spaced steel columns making up the outside walls with steel flange beams supporting the floors throughout the structure to give the building the traditional steel "skeleton"—have withstood such multifloor fires better as the experiences with high-rise fires in Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza and Los Angeles' First Interstate Bank seem to indicate? And if it would have, how would a column-and-beam structure have reacted to the initial impact of the aircraft? Tube structures can be built with much less steel than traditional column-and-beam structures, which is one of their main attractions. But is it too little "body" or mass, particularly with so little concrete, masonry, or cement, to stand up to the committed terrorist?
• Trusses and their connections, primary members. The open-web trusses that were the basis for the floors in the WTC towers spanned distances of up to 60 feet in connecting the external columns to those of the core. Were the trusses or their connections (standard high-tensile field bolts, attached to relatively narrow seat angles with plates welded on top) strong enough to withstand the catenary bending action and the shear on the bolts induced by relatively modest fires, let alone those raging on September 11? Moreover, did the function of the floor trusses in bracing the core and external columns to keep them the requisite distance apart, in equilibrium, make the trusses primary, rather than secondary, members in this design? If so, even without the fires and weakening effect of impact on September 11, how many sets of floor trusses could you have removed from this design without the towers going into terminal and very rapid progressive collapse, as they did that morning?
•Shaft-wall partition system central core. The vast majority of the victims of the WTC attacks on September 11 died because they had no means of escape. They were trapped above the impact floors with the buildings' umbilical cord—the elevators and three sets of stairs—severed below them. The WTC towers included a shaft-wall partition system central core—two layers of gypsum board attached to widely spaced core columns—20 feet off center. The only cement and concrete used in the central core was in the stairs themselves. Would a more traditional central core, with masonry, cement, and concrete as its main components, have survived the impact and fires better? All these elements are known for their blast-, impact-, and fire-resistance properties. Should central cores in high-rise buildings possess the rigidity and durability the name implies?
• Defend in place—surely it is dead. The towers each had three stairways, only one of which, at 54 inches, was considered sufficiently wide to comfortably accommodate two-abreast flows of evacuees. Where firefighters were ascending, there was one flow of evacuees descending and a counterflow of emergency personnel. No one knows how long it would have taken to completely evacuate the towers with such limited stair capacity when fully occupied—six or seven hours is one guess (based on the mass evacuation of February 1993 following the bomb attack). The sorry truth is that the towers were never designed for mass, simultaneous evacuation, yet each time there was a major incident—in 1975 (fire), in 1993 (bomb), and again in 2001 (fire)—that was precisely what was necessary. Even if "defend in place" is an option for fire and other emergency personnel in some instances, if the buildings' occupants have no confidence in it or will not adhere to it, it must be scrapped as an emergency procedure. All high-rise buildings must have adequate means of egress for mass, simultaneous evacuation by all occupants in a set period of time. And in extreme circumstances, such as September 11, occupants do not have six or seven hours. Had the aircraft hit those buildings just one hour later, when the buildings would have been fully occupied, the death toll would have been much, much higher, perhaps between 10,000 and 15,000. The reason is simple: Their capacity to evacuate would have come nowhere near meeting the numbers needed to get out in the time allowed.
• Built-in redundancy to reduce/eliminate the threat of progressive collapse. The WTC towers' collapse was the most extreme and deadly example of progressive collapse ever seen. The failure of one or more floors overloaded the floor or floors below, causing a chain reaction that took only 10 to 12 seconds to complete. Was sufficient redundancy built into the towers' design? The external walls had sufficient redundancy—the ability to redistribute loads to other structural members to prevent failure—as the initial impact proved. But what about inside? What about the open-web floor trusses and core columns? Could the floor trusses and their connections have been more redundant with connections fastening them to the columns at the lower as well as upper chords? Could the core columns have been cross-braced with steel members for additional stability? What difference might this have made, especially for those occupants and rescue personnel trapped in the South Tower? Although it collapsed in less than an hour, one stairwell remained intact and at least two firefighters reached the 78th floor sky lobby. Here, at least, more time could have made all the difference.
If fact a seach of the site reveals no article connecting WTC and Controlled demolition.
I did find this:
From an article about the search for potential survivors and victims:
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...tion%20WTC&p=25
Just minutes earlier, officials were monitoring radio traffic and cellular calls from firefighters and civilians trapped in the basement of Building #7. But with the collapse, also came the end of those calls for help.
I wonder, if as Foxx asserts the damage to WTC 7 was so slight and the fires so minor, how they got trapped?
Arthur
As it turned out under the circumstances, THE OUTER STRUCTURE performed BETTER than the SO-CALLED "CORE" on which much was supposed to depend! Such is the price of false security. And as can be seen from my most recent posts, the 'top' and 'hat truss' structures must have collapsed due to that (haha) 'core' failure beneath them, so that failing so-called 'core' material merely ADDED to the weight/momentum/impulse/impacts on lower floors on the way down...hence the 'pancaking' (but not perfectly coherent/flat across the whole of the floor spaces, of course, because they would be giving way chaotically from their various connections...but essentially so). Anyhow, that's all I have to say about this. Good luck and Happy and Safe New Year for you and yours, everyone!
RealityCheck.
PS: Things will be hotting up in my other physics project soon, so I would appreciate not being 'addressed directly', because I might be delayed in answering and would not wish to unintentionally offend anyone getting the impression I was ignoring them. I will, however, try to keep abreast of the essential PHYSICAL arguments here as best I can with the occasional 'surf through'. Until next time, Ciao and good thinking. RC.
.
QUOTE
See if you can find one of the NZ paper.
I live in the US. Just where am I supposed to get a NZ paper? A NZ paper 42 years old? You may be implying here that Prouty is lying about everything wrt the NZ paper. Are you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| See if you can find one of the NZ paper. |
I live in the US. Just where am I supposed to get a NZ paper? A NZ paper 42 years old? You may be implying here that Prouty is lying about everything wrt the NZ paper. Are you?
Is there NO LIMIT to what you are willing to believe if it fits your pre-conceived notions?
I have read a fair amount about Fletcher Prouty (prouty.org) , and consider him eminently credible. Having read your pope-ish pronouncements, I put your credibility at 0. Anybody who can explain away the collapse of a perfectly rigid 500+ foot spire by saying "it obviously broke into pieces" may deserve to have negative credibility, if there is such a thing.
Also, you are one of the broken records who keep saying "where is the evidence?".
QUOTE
Even so the paper would not have been published until 1.30 pm or 2.15 - 2.30 pm depending on the edition. Bob Cotton says that the Star was never published in the morning during his time on the newspaper (from 1958).
Hmmmm. So the assassination of a US president would not cause them to push up their publication time by 1.5 hours, is that it? Because Prouty tells us he got his copy by noon. I find that a little hard to believe. Don't you?
Also, not that I know much about the newspaper business, but I thought all major daily papers have a morning edition. The bigger ones may have an afternoon edition, but that is pretty rare.
Consequently, without corroborating testimony from other New Zealanders in a position to know, I don't accept the word of Mr. Cotton over that of Fletcher Prouty. This should be a matter of fact, quite easy to prove/disprove for somebody in New Zealand. And the best way to prove/disprove is NOT to contact a principal at the newspaper in question. The discussion is about censorship/control in foreign media by US interests, remember? Most major newspapers are sold in hundreds of locations, and if they have a home delivery service, one could easily establish morning delivery by talking to any number of thousands of such customers.
Also, according to Cotton, "Some conspiracy theorists have made special trips to Christchurch to interview him"
Wow. So, are we to believe that conspiracy theorists ponied up the time and money for a "special trip" to Christchurch, didn't hear what they wanted to hear, and then just went home with their tale between their legs? Since they were already in New Zealand, one expects they would have corroborated Cotton's candy (
sorry, couldn't resist that) And furthermore, that some of this corroboration (or debunking, if it turns out that Cotton was wrong) would have ended up on the internet.So, where is all the additional corroboration? Since you found this quote by Cotton, perhaps you can find these other sources. While your credibility with me is 0, you may find enough corroboration to make me believe that Prouty was mistaken.
Finally, Prouty also refers to time differentials of 8 hours. Even if the paper came out at 1:30 pm instead of by 12:00 pm NZ time, you still have not explained away the Star's precognition.
QUOTE (Metamars+)
Finally, Prouty also refers to time differentials of 8 hours. Even if the paper came out at 1:30 pm instead of by 12:00 pm NZ time, you still have not explained away the Star's precognition.
Good Point.
Prouty can't tell time.
At the specified time, local time in Christchurch was 18 hours ahead of Dallas
Location Local time Time zone
Dallas (U.S.A. - Texas) Friday, November 20, 1970 at 5:00:00 PM or UTC-6 hours CST
Christchurch (New Zealand) Saturday, November 21, 1970 at 11:00:00 AM UTC+12 hours
Use this converter to see for yourself.
This only goes back to 1970, but then the year doesn't matter.
So at 5:00 PM in Dallas it was but 11:00 AM in ChristChurch.
Time enough to get the story, add in the last breaking bit about LHO, and get it on the street.
Arthur
Good Point.
Prouty can't tell time.
At the specified time, local time in Christchurch was 18 hours ahead of Dallas
Location Local time Time zone
Dallas (U.S.A. - Texas) Friday, November 20, 1970 at 5:00:00 PM or UTC-6 hours CST
Christchurch (New Zealand) Saturday, November 21, 1970 at 11:00:00 AM UTC+12 hours
Use this converter to see for yourself.
This only goes back to 1970, but then the year doesn't matter.
So at 5:00 PM in Dallas it was but 11:00 AM in ChristChurch.
Time enough to get the story, add in the last breaking bit about LHO, and get it on the street.
Arthur
There is a large difference between mischaracterization and telling you what you are unwittingly implying. I'am telling you what you are unwittingly implying. Because if the main stream foreign press also doesn't touch this with a ten foot poll then it's more than just the ford foundation isn't it.
You said...
and I said...
and I said...
the Zogby poll shows what I want as well. An investigation into why nothing was done with the evidence they had like terrorist learning how to fly planes.
I remember going into detail as to all the evidence that the Administration sat on, like the PDB. Did you miss that? Well now you see it.
If you ask me today: "Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?" I would say yes.
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Where does it say the administration blew up the WTC? Where does it say "The administration knew the time, place and date of the attack and did nothing"? Where does it say the administration had a conspiracy to destroy the WTC?
In the same poll only 28% of the people knew the number of the thirdt building that fell!
Then theirs the question of SO WHAT. What if 50% of the people thought Bush did. it. Not long ago a poll was done asking if Saddam had WMD. Remember that poll? What was it, 40% or something like that thought he had it. Using your logic if the number is high then we should act.
Here's the kicker... If you "follow the money" like you did with leftgatekeepers you find the poll was paid for by 911truth.org. Using your logic this poll is propaganda for the 9/11 conspiracy sites.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that the poll was worded in such a way as to get people like me, who don't see a conspiracy to blow up the WTC to vote in agreement.
As for the attack on my credibility on this board you once again offer no quotes to back up the statement that I lie. That seems to be your modus operandi. Statement, attack, statement, attack... You are no different than Steve all though a tad more coherent. I have yet to see you post one post without attack. Only social midgets need stools of attack to stand on. Lets see if you heed your own words and turn a new leaf this year. Please continue to attack me and I'll continue to point out the irony.
For the new year I was really trying to turn a new leaf. Note I haven't even addressed the noise. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna bend over for you. Comprendi?
Why is there debris falling faster than the building if the buildings falling at free fall? Obviously theres little physics being done here. Not even common sense. That's why I'm here.
And yet the 9/11 sites say
"On 9/11, by coincidence, three such buildings collapsed in ten to fifteen seconds, almost freefall speed. In other words, if you dropped a brick from the top of the World Trade Center it would have taken about that time to hit the ground."
good question, there will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
Is gordon still here?
When a truss is heated and tries to expand but is resisted from doing so and instead sags, as you have pointed out, what then happens a little later on as that truss cools? Possible mode for inward bowing?
Inward bowing, impossible you say?
This of the 9th floor of the Madrid Windsor building. Note that one column bows sideways and two others bow ,,, inwards.
Why is there debris falling faster than the building if the buildings falling at free fall? Obviously theres little physics being done here. Not even common sense. That's why I'm here.
And yet the 9/11 sites say
"On 9/11, by coincidence, three such buildings collapsed in ten to fifteen seconds, almost freefall speed. In other words, if you dropped a brick from the top of the World Trade Center it would have taken about that time to hit the ground."
good question, there will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
Is gordon still here?
When a truss is heated and tries to expand but is resisted from doing so and instead sags, as you have pointed out, what then happens a little later on as that truss cools? Possible mode for inward bowing?
Inward bowing, impossible you say?
This of the 9th floor of the Madrid Windsor building. Note that one column bows sideways and two others bow ,,, inwards.
Think about that a moment, how can it go faster than freefall driven by gravity?
Hint: explosives
Some of us already know the answer to that question, but what do you think is the most logical explanation that remains within the laws of physics, gravity and reality?
Some of us already know the answer to that question, but what do you think is the most logical explanation that remains within the laws of physics, gravity and reality?
That the collapse is NOT occurring at a 'free fall' rate.
Pray tell (ironic choice of phrase fully intended), what is your explanation stevie?
Some of us already know the answer to that question, but what do you think is the most logical explanation that remains within the laws of physics, gravity and reality?
This oughta' be good!
You said...
QUOTE
The Zogby poll, which was recently pointed out to you, clearly shows that about 2/3 of New Yorkers want a re-investigation. So your strawman is clearly misleading, unless you can provide any real evidence that widows and widowers are significantly less likely than other New Yorkers* to want such a reinvestigation. You provide no statistical evidence for this, yet THIS is the straw man that you TRY to knock down.
and I said...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Zogby poll, which was recently pointed out to you, clearly shows that about 2/3 of New Yorkers want a re-investigation. So your strawman is clearly misleading, unless you can provide any real evidence that widows and widowers are significantly less likely than other New Yorkers* to want such a reinvestigation. You provide no statistical evidence for this, yet THIS is the straw man that you TRY to knock down. |
and I said...
the Zogby poll shows what I want as well. An investigation into why nothing was done with the evidence they had like terrorist learning how to fly planes.
I remember going into detail as to all the evidence that the Administration sat on, like the PDB. Did you miss that? Well now you see it.
If you ask me today: "Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?" I would say yes.
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Where does it say the administration blew up the WTC? Where does it say "The administration knew the time, place and date of the attack and did nothing"? Where does it say the administration had a conspiracy to destroy the WTC?
In the same poll only 28% of the people knew the number of the thirdt building that fell!
Then theirs the question of SO WHAT. What if 50% of the people thought Bush did. it. Not long ago a poll was done asking if Saddam had WMD. Remember that poll? What was it, 40% or something like that thought he had it. Using your logic if the number is high then we should act.
Here's the kicker... If you "follow the money" like you did with leftgatekeepers you find the poll was paid for by 911truth.org. Using your logic this poll is propaganda for the 9/11 conspiracy sites.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that the poll was worded in such a way as to get people like me, who don't see a conspiracy to blow up the WTC to vote in agreement.
As for the attack on my credibility on this board you once again offer no quotes to back up the statement that I lie. That seems to be your modus operandi. Statement, attack, statement, attack... You are no different than Steve all though a tad more coherent. I have yet to see you post one post without attack. Only social midgets need stools of attack to stand on. Lets see if you heed your own words and turn a new leaf this year. Please continue to attack me and I'll continue to point out the irony.
For the new year I was really trying to turn a new leaf. Note I haven't even addressed the noise. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna bend over for you. Comprendi?
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 2 2006, 11:11 PM)
yesdidt,
Neither one of you was able to wiggle out of the undeniable proof of what the police, fireman and others testified to.
http://www.iwilltryit.com/walter1.htm
Nobody in their right mind can watch this PROOF and still support the fairy tale, but there are many who aren't in their right mind.
http://www.iwilltryit.com/911summary.htm
Still no sound on my computer so it would be difficult to refute anything on the basis of the video content.
If there is a specific quote or passage then please transcribe it here.
Neither one of you was able to wiggle out of the undeniable proof of what the police, fireman and others testified to.
http://www.iwilltryit.com/walter1.htm
Nobody in their right mind can watch this PROOF and still support the fairy tale, but there are many who aren't in their right mind.
http://www.iwilltryit.com/911summary.htm
Still no sound on my computer so it would be difficult to refute anything on the basis of the video content.
If there is a specific quote or passage then please transcribe it here.
BTW, Do you have a picture of that PUFF happening BEFORE the collapse starts?
Notice the PUFFs well before the actual fall of this controlled demolition...
I'm not sure of this but it seems possible the puffs [edit: in metamars photo link] are from large volumes of air being displaced from the upper floors and being pushed down the core. The core was nothing but staircases, elevators and service conduits. It may have become a rather large needle. Most of the elevators didn't even go all the way down which means the air may have found an open elevator door on the bottom of the top elevator shaft. Elevators may have crashed to the bottom of the top shaft and blew a door or two open. All that displaced air will want to find the easiest way out. It finds a weak spot in an office then blows the weakest window out. As I said, It becomes a giant hypodermic needle. I've always suspected the people in the staircase died from a tremendous blast of air before they got hit with debris. It may have even been an elevator shaft vent or fan. Most office buildings without windows you can open need large fans by code to push out smoke from fire.
It may be one of those or it may be something else. But it seems to me it can't be from a demolition if it didn't happen before the building started to fall. The minute the floors start falling, the minute the air starts compressing and trying to find a way out.
Also, note the building falls all at once and not from the top down.
Notice the PUFFs well before the actual fall of this controlled demolition...
I'm not sure of this but it seems possible the puffs [edit: in metamars photo link] are from large volumes of air being displaced from the upper floors and being pushed down the core. The core was nothing but staircases, elevators and service conduits. It may have become a rather large needle. Most of the elevators didn't even go all the way down which means the air may have found an open elevator door on the bottom of the top elevator shaft. Elevators may have crashed to the bottom of the top shaft and blew a door or two open. All that displaced air will want to find the easiest way out. It finds a weak spot in an office then blows the weakest window out. As I said, It becomes a giant hypodermic needle. I've always suspected the people in the staircase died from a tremendous blast of air before they got hit with debris. It may have even been an elevator shaft vent or fan. Most office buildings without windows you can open need large fans by code to push out smoke from fire.
It may be one of those or it may be something else. But it seems to me it can't be from a demolition if it didn't happen before the building started to fall. The minute the floors start falling, the minute the air starts compressing and trying to find a way out.
Also, note the building falls all at once and not from the top down.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 3 2006, 04:00 AM)
BTW, Do you have a picture of that PUFF happening BEFORE the collapse starts?
Notice the PUFFs well before the actual fall...
I'm not sure of this but it seems possible the puffs are from large volumes of air being displaced from the upper floors and being pushed down the core. The core was nothing but staircases, elevators and service conduits. It may have become a rather large needle. Most of the elevators didn't even go all the way down which means the air may have found an open elevator door on the bottom of the top elevator shaft. Elevators may have crashed to the bottom of the top shaft and blew a door or two open. All that displaced air will want to find the easiest way out. It finds a weak spot in an office then blows the weakest window out. As I said, It becomes a giant hypodermic needle. I've always suspected the people in the staircase died from the tremendous blast of air before they got hit with debris. It may have even been an elevator shaft vent or fan. Most office buildings without windows you can open need large fans by code to push out smoke from fire.
It may be one of those or it may be something else. But it seems to me it can't be from a demolition if it didn't happen before the building started to fall. The minute the floors start falling, the minute the air starts compressing and trying to find a way out.
Also, note the building falls all at once and not from the top down.
.
Hi Common Sense.
It looks to me that these are the result of some column-breaking charges which are usually set off so as to ensure that the TALL structure does not topple onto nearby sites as one rigid structure when the main BOTTOM charges are set off (which are not usually set off unless it is clear that the 'spine' of the whole building 'fragmented' enough to ensure it falls AS RUBBLE rather than topple AS INTACT STRUCTURE). The BOTTOM charges is why all the building (now 'fractured' top-to-bottom) falls ALL AT ONCE IN A HEAP instead of incrementally from top down.
But that's just a quick take on what is shown...that's it from me. Ciao.
RC.
PS: Where were these particular buildings...does anybody know?...for I'm interested in that church-spired? building nearby. Thanks.
Notice the PUFFs well before the actual fall...
I'm not sure of this but it seems possible the puffs are from large volumes of air being displaced from the upper floors and being pushed down the core. The core was nothing but staircases, elevators and service conduits. It may have become a rather large needle. Most of the elevators didn't even go all the way down which means the air may have found an open elevator door on the bottom of the top elevator shaft. Elevators may have crashed to the bottom of the top shaft and blew a door or two open. All that displaced air will want to find the easiest way out. It finds a weak spot in an office then blows the weakest window out. As I said, It becomes a giant hypodermic needle. I've always suspected the people in the staircase died from the tremendous blast of air before they got hit with debris. It may have even been an elevator shaft vent or fan. Most office buildings without windows you can open need large fans by code to push out smoke from fire.
It may be one of those or it may be something else. But it seems to me it can't be from a demolition if it didn't happen before the building started to fall. The minute the floors start falling, the minute the air starts compressing and trying to find a way out.
Also, note the building falls all at once and not from the top down.
.
Hi Common Sense.
It looks to me that these are the result of some column-breaking charges which are usually set off so as to ensure that the TALL structure does not topple onto nearby sites as one rigid structure when the main BOTTOM charges are set off (which are not usually set off unless it is clear that the 'spine' of the whole building 'fragmented' enough to ensure it falls AS RUBBLE rather than topple AS INTACT STRUCTURE). The BOTTOM charges is why all the building (now 'fractured' top-to-bottom) falls ALL AT ONCE IN A HEAP instead of incrementally from top down.
But that's just a quick take on what is shown...that's it from me. Ciao.
RC.
PS: Where were these particular buildings...does anybody know?...for I'm interested in that church-spired? building nearby. Thanks.
Thanks RC but just to clarify the puffs I was talking about below the photo were the ones of the WTC metamars linked to. I will make that more clear in the post.
You don't have to respond if you don't have time. (though I always love when you do)
Thanks again for your input.
You don't have to respond if you don't have time. (though I always love when you do)
Thanks again for your input.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 2 2006, 11:29 PM)
Why is there debris falling faster than the building if the buildings falling at free fall?
Obviously theres little physics being done here. Not even common sense. That's why I'm here. And yet the 9/11 sites say
"On 9/11, by coincidence, three such buildings collapsed in ten to fifteen seconds, almost freefall speed. In other words, if you dropped a brick from the top of the World Trade Center it would have taken about that time to hit the ground."
good question, there will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
Is gordon still here?
When a truss is heated and tries to expand but is resisted from doing so and instead sags, as you have pointed out, what then happens a little later on as that truss cools? Possible mode for inward bowing?
Inward bowing, impossible you say?
This of the 9th floor of the Madrid Windsor building. Note that one column bows sideways and two others bow ,,, inwards.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 3 2006, 04:46 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 2 2006, 11:29 PM)
Why is there debris falling faster than the building if the buildings falling at free fall?
Obviously theres little physics being done here. Not even common sense. That's why I'm here. And yet the 9/11 sites say
"On 9/11, by coincidence, three such buildings collapsed in ten to fifteen seconds, almost freefall speed. In other words, if you dropped a brick from the top of the World Trade Center it would have taken about that time to hit the ground."
good question, there will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
Is gordon still here?
When a truss is heated and tries to expand but is resisted from doing so and instead sags, as you have pointed out, what then happens a little later on as that truss cools? Possible mode for inward bowing?
Inward bowing, impossible you say?
This of the 9th floor of the Madrid Windsor building. Note that one column bows sideways and two others bow ,,, inwards.
Think about that a moment, how can it go faster than freefall driven by gravity?
Hint: explosives
QUOTE
yesitdid
There will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
There will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
Some of us already know the answer to that question, but what do you think is the most logical explanation that remains within the laws of physics, gravity and reality?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 3 2006, 05:09 AM)
Think about that a moment, how can it go faster than free fall driven by gravity?
Hint: explosives
Think about it yourself. Explosives still will not allow that debris to fall faster than free-fall. Unless they had a directed charge applied to them that drove them downward after they cleared the side of the building.
Perhaps you'd like to expand on your theory that explosives could account for debris that falls faster than a simple free-fall. go ahead and use math and big words.
Hint: explosives
Think about it yourself. Explosives still will not allow that debris to fall faster than free-fall. Unless they had a directed charge applied to them that drove them downward after they cleared the side of the building.
Perhaps you'd like to expand on your theory that explosives could account for debris that falls faster than a simple free-fall. go ahead and use math and big words.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 3 2006, 05:18 AM)
QUOTE
yesitdid
There will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
There will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
Some of us already know the answer to that question, but what do you think is the most logical explanation that remains within the laws of physics, gravity and reality?
That the collapse is NOT occurring at a 'free fall' rate.
Pray tell (ironic choice of phrase fully intended), what is your explanation stevie?
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 3 2006, 05:18 AM)
QUOTE
yesitdid
There will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
There will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
Some of us already know the answer to that question, but what do you think is the most logical explanation that remains within the laws of physics, gravity and reality?
This oughta' be good!
This is getting ridiculous. At least metamars and gordon know that nothing can fall faster than gravity allows UNLESS a vectored downward force acts in conjunction to the force of gravity.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 3 2006, 05:09 AM)
Think about that a moment, how can it go faster than freefall driven by gravity?
Hint: explosives
Explosives set off to blow the core can not impart a downward vector to debris.
Since this debris is falling next to the tower, it also left the building with minimal horizontal velocity, again not indicitive of HE.
There is in fact NO evidence of HE.
Take the previous video of a controlled demolition, with the smoke plumes at multiple floors.
Now notice on the building on the left the long black cloth that extends from the building. These are BLAST CLOTHS. The floors where the HE is set off is WRAPPED in this KEVLAR cloth to contain blast fragments, which OTHERWISE would emerge at high rates of speed. They also contain most of the smoke plume, which otherwise would also be a magnitude larger.
No blast cloths on the WTC towers, yet anemic puffs of smoke.
Clearly not what you would expect from 10 or more LARGE HE detonations on each floor that is "blown". The puff would CIRCLE the building, and at ~15,000 fps the Shock Front would make a distinct CRACK on any audiotape.
None of course are heard.
There is NO evidence of HE in ANY of the WTC videos.
Things which CTers point out ARE evidence only shows their lack of knowledge of HE when used in CD.
Arthur
Hint: explosives
Explosives set off to blow the core can not impart a downward vector to debris.
Since this debris is falling next to the tower, it also left the building with minimal horizontal velocity, again not indicitive of HE.
There is in fact NO evidence of HE.
Take the previous video of a controlled demolition, with the smoke plumes at multiple floors.
Now notice on the building on the left the long black cloth that extends from the building. These are BLAST CLOTHS. The floors where the HE is set off is WRAPPED in this KEVLAR cloth to contain blast fragments, which OTHERWISE would emerge at high rates of speed. They also contain most of the smoke plume, which otherwise would also be a magnitude larger.
No blast cloths on the WTC towers, yet anemic puffs of smoke.
Clearly not what you would expect from 10 or more LARGE HE detonations on each floor that is "blown". The puff would CIRCLE the building, and at ~15,000 fps the Shock Front would make a distinct CRACK on any audiotape.
None of course are heard.
There is NO evidence of HE in ANY of the WTC videos.
Things which CTers point out ARE evidence only shows their lack of knowledge of HE when used in CD.
Arthur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 3 2006, 05:42 AM)
"ridiculous"
Who are you and what did you do with yesitdid??
How ya' been, man?
Who are you and what did you do with yesitdid??
How ya' been, man?
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 3 2006, 05:47 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 3 2006, 05:42 AM)
"ridiculous"
Who are you and what did you do with yesitdid??
How ya' been, man?
Good, and I now only spell it rediculous if I want to get a rise out of Foox.
It's late, gotta turn in. Back to working for a living tomorrow. So far the retirement plan hasn't kicked in. If only I could get those 6 numbers right.
Who are you and what did you do with yesitdid??
How ya' been, man?
Good, and I now only spell it rediculous if I want to get a rise out of Foox.
It's late, gotta turn in. Back to working for a living tomorrow. So far the retirement plan hasn't kicked in. If only I could get those 6 numbers right.
What the heck are you guys smoking?
The debris that were SHOT OUT, OR BLOWN OUT of the floors beneath the top floors, BEFORE the top floors fell on them, because they were BLOWN OUT BEFORE the top floors fell.
Come on now think.
How else can the debris fall faster than the free fall of the top floors? Doesn't that make it obvious the lower floors were blown out before the top floors crushed them?
Come on now think.
This totally wipes out the fairy tale pancake theory as it proves the debris were blown out by something other than the weight of the top floors.
THIS PROVES EXPLOSIVES, and this PROVES THE PANCAKE THEORY IS A FARCE.
IN fact just the fact that the structure was blown to fine powder shows EXPLOSIVE WERE USED, and what about all those eye witnesses of bombs going off WELL BEFORE the towers collapsed.
Look, when and if you guys finally figure it out, don't worry about apologizing to us who have been trying to tell you before hand. We forgive you and understand you just didn't know any better.
But don't you think it's time to start facing up to reality? I mean it sometimes looks like your almost there, you figured out the debris fell BEFORE the top floors fell on them, which disproves the pancake theory, now all you gotta do is press a little harder until you see the light.
Keep plugging boys and girls, I'm waiting for that day when I check these posts and discover you finally got it, yeah, I won't hold my breath, and it is impossible for half-wits and nit-wits to comprehend these things, but "What's impossible with men is possible with God, and God is still in the miracle working business, meaning there's still hope for you, even as messed up as you are.
The debris that were SHOT OUT, OR BLOWN OUT of the floors beneath the top floors, BEFORE the top floors fell on them, because they were BLOWN OUT BEFORE the top floors fell.
Come on now think.
How else can the debris fall faster than the free fall of the top floors? Doesn't that make it obvious the lower floors were blown out before the top floors crushed them?
Come on now think.
This totally wipes out the fairy tale pancake theory as it proves the debris were blown out by something other than the weight of the top floors.
THIS PROVES EXPLOSIVES, and this PROVES THE PANCAKE THEORY IS A FARCE.
IN fact just the fact that the structure was blown to fine powder shows EXPLOSIVE WERE USED, and what about all those eye witnesses of bombs going off WELL BEFORE the towers collapsed.
Look, when and if you guys finally figure it out, don't worry about apologizing to us who have been trying to tell you before hand. We forgive you and understand you just didn't know any better.
But don't you think it's time to start facing up to reality? I mean it sometimes looks like your almost there, you figured out the debris fell BEFORE the top floors fell on them, which disproves the pancake theory, now all you gotta do is press a little harder until you see the light.
Keep plugging boys and girls, I'm waiting for that day when I check these posts and discover you finally got it, yeah, I won't hold my breath, and it is impossible for half-wits and nit-wits to comprehend these things, but "What's impossible with men is possible with God, and God is still in the miracle working business, meaning there's still hope for you, even as messed up as you are.
There's an old saying that some of you half-wits and nit-wits might want to consider, "Try to think outside the box" Now in your case the "BOX" refers to the main stream media, the bush fairy tale, has got you boxed in to preconceived notions that have put BLINDERS on your ability to think about what really happened.
The "BOX" is the false image that the government can do no wrong, and it's this box, that has you so boxed in you can't see the physics involved with the collapse.
So try to think outside the box and maybe, just maybe you might be able to see what reality is all about.
The "BOX" is the false image that the government can do no wrong, and it's this box, that has you so boxed in you can't see the physics involved with the collapse.
So try to think outside the box and maybe, just maybe you might be able to see what reality is all about.
He didn't disappoint, did he?
You're really a true believer, ain't ya' Steve?
You're really a true believer, ain't ya' Steve?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 3 2006, 05:36 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 3 2006, 05:09 AM)
Think about that a moment, how can it go faster than free fall driven by gravity?
Hint: explosives
Think about it yourself. Explosives still will not allow that debris to fall faster than free-fall. Unless they had a directed charge applied to them that drove them downward after they cleared the side of the building.
Perhaps you'd like to expand on your theory that explosives could account for debris that falls faster than a simple free-fall. go ahead and use math and big words.
Besides explosives what would increase the decent of the steel beams and eject them over 70 meters?
There is a large difference between mischaracterization and telling you what you are unwittingly implying.
Your weird notions of what I am "unwittingly implying" are obvious only to yourself (and, I suppose, others who possess your "common sense"), and are not just distortions, but gross distortions at that.
Your weird notions of what I am "unwittingly implying" are obvious only to yourself (and, I suppose, others who possess your "common sense"), and are not just distortions, but gross distortions at that.
Because if the main stream foreign press also doesn't touch this with a ten foot poll then it's more than just the ford foundation isn't it.
The Ford Foundation was just one of many players, which included the CIA. This amounts to a straw man argument, unless you can convince anybody that only the Ford Foundation would have a desire to manipulate foreign news.
Then theirs the question of SO WHAT. What if 50% of the people thought Bush did. it. Not long ago a poll was done asking if Saddam had WMD. Remember that poll? What was it, 40% or something like that thought he had it. Using your logic if the number is high then we should act.
You again assume you understand "my logic". The propagandistic buildup to the Iraq invasion was aided and abetted by the media's cheerleading approach (plus the administrations ability to lie pathologically and, (unfortunately) convincingly about the "threat" from Iraq.)
This is just the opposite of the way they have approached the defects of the government 911 Fairy Tales.
The correct comparison is between the media's lack of agressive reporting of stories and leads NOT in harmony with the Administration's Iraq propaganda, and the same lack of aggressiveness pursuing 911 stories and leads which give the lie to it's 911 propaganda. How could you possibly fail to draw the obvious comparison?
You again assume you understand "my logic". The propagandistic buildup to the Iraq invasion was aided and abetted by the media's cheerleading approach (plus the administrations ability to lie pathologically and, (unfortunately) convincingly about the "threat" from Iraq.)
This is just the opposite of the way they have approached the defects of the government 911 Fairy Tales.
The correct comparison is between the media's lack of agressive reporting of stories and leads NOT in harmony with the Administration's Iraq propaganda, and the same lack of aggressiveness pursuing 911 stories and leads which give the lie to it's 911 propaganda. How could you possibly fail to draw the obvious comparison?
Here's the kicker... If you "follow the money" like you did with leftgatekeepers you find the poll was paid for by 911truth.org. Using your logic this poll is propaganda for the 9/11 conspiracy sites.
A rather shoddy logical inference. You are confusing "follow the money" with "the money - ANY money - determines everything".
Speaking for myself, the undeniable evidence of gatekeeping is the empirical fact of the near universal silence, across the political spectrum, regarding certain "forbidden" topics. It's pretty near impossible to calculate a mathematical probability that everybody will agree on to show this, but it's also obviously completely damning to any reasonable notion of what a free press should be about.
The money trail is the icing on the evidential cake.
While I have little respect for our whorish media, AFAIK, Zogby has an excellent reputation as a polling organization. Your logic, which you again impute to me, conflates the media (whose corruption is documented in "Into the Buzzsaw", and to some extent leftgatekeepers.com, etc.) with a single organization in another line of business whose reputation is excellent.*
It's possible that you seriously believed you made a valid point with this last quote, but clearly you have either honestly assumed that I am not capable of more than the muddled thinking you impute to me, or you know better and have presented yet another straw man argument, apparently for some propagandistic purpose.
In either case, maybe you should consider retiring. Your record is not very good.
*Again, AFAIK; Zogby was supposed to have been the most accurate pollster in the '00 US election, IIRC; Their projected electoral results in '04 presidential election were way off, but I firmly believe that that's due to the vote fraud issue, and thus not their fault.
As for the attack on my credibility on this board you once again offer no quotes to back up the statement that I lie.
What is it about the following that you don't understand?
What is it about the following that you don't understand?
metamars
Anybody who believes this is anything other than a lie is invited to search this thread for my posts, to see if they can confirm it.
Hint: explosives
Think about it yourself. Explosives still will not allow that debris to fall faster than free-fall. Unless they had a directed charge applied to them that drove them downward after they cleared the side of the building.
Perhaps you'd like to expand on your theory that explosives could account for debris that falls faster than a simple free-fall. go ahead and use math and big words.
Besides explosives what would increase the decent of the steel beams and eject them over 70 meters?
Coastal,
Yes sir, I'm a firm believe in God and the truth. And it's because of my belief that I know there's still hope, even for the half-wits and nit-wits on this board who still hang on to the magician in the cave fairy tale.
And if Lord willing, I get to see the day, when truth and real common sense flows through these guys, you better believe it will be a glorious day, and a day of miracles, because only a miracle could turn a nit-wit into an intelligent thinker.
Yes sir, I'm a firm believe in God and the truth. And it's because of my belief that I know there's still hope, even for the half-wits and nit-wits on this board who still hang on to the magician in the cave fairy tale.
And if Lord willing, I get to see the day, when truth and real common sense flows through these guys, you better believe it will be a glorious day, and a day of miracles, because only a miracle could turn a nit-wit into an intelligent thinker.
QUOTE
There is a large difference between mischaracterization and telling you what you are unwittingly implying.
Your weird notions of what I am "unwittingly implying" are obvious only to yourself (and, I suppose, others who possess your "common sense"), and are not just distortions, but gross distortions at that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
There is a large difference between mischaracterization and telling you what you are unwittingly implying. |
Your weird notions of what I am "unwittingly implying" are obvious only to yourself (and, I suppose, others who possess your "common sense"), and are not just distortions, but gross distortions at that.
Because if the main stream foreign press also doesn't touch this with a ten foot poll then it's more than just the ford foundation isn't it.
The Ford Foundation was just one of many players, which included the CIA. This amounts to a straw man argument, unless you can convince anybody that only the Ford Foundation would have a desire to manipulate foreign news.
QUOTE
Then theirs the question of SO WHAT. What if 50% of the people thought Bush did. it. Not long ago a poll was done asking if Saddam had WMD. Remember that poll? What was it, 40% or something like that thought he had it. Using your logic if the number is high then we should act.
You again assume you understand "my logic". The propagandistic buildup to the Iraq invasion was aided and abetted by the media's cheerleading approach (plus the administrations ability to lie pathologically and, (unfortunately) convincingly about the "threat" from Iraq.)
This is just the opposite of the way they have approached the defects of the government 911 Fairy Tales.
The correct comparison is between the media's lack of agressive reporting of stories and leads NOT in harmony with the Administration's Iraq propaganda, and the same lack of aggressiveness pursuing 911 stories and leads which give the lie to it's 911 propaganda. How could you possibly fail to draw the obvious comparison?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Then theirs the question of SO WHAT. What if 50% of the people thought Bush did. it. Not long ago a poll was done asking if Saddam had WMD. Remember that poll? What was it, 40% or something like that thought he had it. Using your logic if the number is high then we should act. |
You again assume you understand "my logic". The propagandistic buildup to the Iraq invasion was aided and abetted by the media's cheerleading approach (plus the administrations ability to lie pathologically and, (unfortunately) convincingly about the "threat" from Iraq.)
This is just the opposite of the way they have approached the defects of the government 911 Fairy Tales.
The correct comparison is between the media's lack of agressive reporting of stories and leads NOT in harmony with the Administration's Iraq propaganda, and the same lack of aggressiveness pursuing 911 stories and leads which give the lie to it's 911 propaganda. How could you possibly fail to draw the obvious comparison?
Here's the kicker... If you "follow the money" like you did with leftgatekeepers you find the poll was paid for by 911truth.org. Using your logic this poll is propaganda for the 9/11 conspiracy sites.
A rather shoddy logical inference. You are confusing "follow the money" with "the money - ANY money - determines everything".
Speaking for myself, the undeniable evidence of gatekeeping is the empirical fact of the near universal silence, across the political spectrum, regarding certain "forbidden" topics. It's pretty near impossible to calculate a mathematical probability that everybody will agree on to show this, but it's also obviously completely damning to any reasonable notion of what a free press should be about.
The money trail is the icing on the evidential cake.
While I have little respect for our whorish media, AFAIK, Zogby has an excellent reputation as a polling organization. Your logic, which you again impute to me, conflates the media (whose corruption is documented in "Into the Buzzsaw", and to some extent leftgatekeepers.com, etc.) with a single organization in another line of business whose reputation is excellent.*
It's possible that you seriously believed you made a valid point with this last quote, but clearly you have either honestly assumed that I am not capable of more than the muddled thinking you impute to me, or you know better and have presented yet another straw man argument, apparently for some propagandistic purpose.
In either case, maybe you should consider retiring. Your record is not very good.
*Again, AFAIK; Zogby was supposed to have been the most accurate pollster in the '00 US election, IIRC; Their projected electoral results in '04 presidential election were way off, but I firmly believe that that's due to the vote fraud issue, and thus not their fault.
QUOTE
As for the attack on my credibility on this board you once again offer no quotes to back up the statement that I lie.
What is it about the following that you don't understand?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
As for the attack on my credibility on this board you once again offer no quotes to back up the statement that I lie. |
What is it about the following that you don't understand?
metamars
QUOTE
Common Sense
It must be true because according to metamars anything in an organizational chart is true!
It must be true because according to metamars anything in an organizational chart is true!
Anybody who believes this is anything other than a lie is invited to search this thread for my posts, to see if they can confirm it.
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 3 2006, 06:15 AM)
He didn't disappoint, did he?
You're really a true believer, ain't ya' Steve?
No, he did not disappoint.
steve, please show a photo or video that illustrates that large steel columns were ejected from the initial collapse floor(or higher) at the time of initial collapse(or earlier).
reasonwhy, don't answer my query with another question.
You're really a true believer, ain't ya' Steve?
No, he did not disappoint.
steve, please show a photo or video that illustrates that large steel columns were ejected from the initial collapse floor(or higher) at the time of initial collapse(or earlier).
reasonwhy, don't answer my query with another question.
These videos contain all the information you need, but the specific footage is a minute or so into the clip, so I'll post a few. The only thing you need is patience...
http://www.iwilltryit.com/criminals.htm
http://www.iwilltryit.com/911summary.htm
http://www.iwilltryit.com/911crooks.htm
As I said the footage is right there in plaine view, the only thing is you may have to watch the video for a while before the specific footage your looking for comes on, as there is much information covered, but fear not the other information is EXTREMELY USELFUL.
I have several other files, but these 3 should suffice. If you need more let me know.
http://www.iwilltryit.com/criminals.htm
http://www.iwilltryit.com/911summary.htm
http://www.iwilltryit.com/911crooks.htm
As I said the footage is right there in plaine view, the only thing is you may have to watch the video for a while before the specific footage your looking for comes on, as there is much information covered, but fear not the other information is EXTREMELY USELFUL.
I have several other files, but these 3 should suffice. If you need more let me know.
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Jan 3 2006, 02:08 PM)
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 3 2006, 06:15 AM)
He didn't disappoint, did he?
You're really a true believer, ain't ya' Steve?
No, he did not disappoint.
steve, please show a photo or video that illustrates that large steel columns were ejected from the initial collapse floor(or higher) at the time of initial collapse(or earlier).
reasonwhy, don't answer my query with another question.
You answered you own question on the previous page
Do not ask me any more questions.
And who, exactly, is claiming that the debris "outran" the 'free-fall' of collapse? You also enjoy knocking down straw men, don't you?
These photographs of towers with billowing clouds, of course, constitute prima facie evidence of demolition. It takes a real faith in Fairy Tales to look at them and not notice this. Assigning Fairy Tale beliefs onto others who don't hold this belief is actually a secondary sin.
FEMA and NIST, of course, don't even attempt to explain these mushroom tops - either their huge volume, their speed of lateral ejection, the rate of clouds of ejecta creation as collapse ensues and how this could possibly be compatible with a pile driver notion of collapse, it's symmetry, the sublimating/powderizing nature of some of the chunks of building that fall off to the side and the upwards momentum of some of the pieces.
The last I checked, gravity was a downward pushing force. Yet, when I eyeball one of the streaming chunks of matter in the upper left in the photo I posted:
( 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html )
I get, as a minimum, an upward displacement of about 12 floors or 44 meters. That's close to half a football field.
So much for the "no evidence" broken records posters.
Also, the "nub" which points up and to the left is over half the width of the tower. It's also very high. IMHO, this is hard to explain via both FEMA Fairy Tales and also a naive demolition hypothesis.* It points to a directed energy source which acts more or less uniformly over a HUGE distance AND area. Why would an ordinary high explosive project a more or less uniform (ignoring the color change) "nub" of smoke over such a large distance and area?** Also, as far as I can tell, this nub is made of smoke, not the powderish ejecta that is being ejected from the side.
Oh, and by the way, some of the "downward streamers" in this photo look rather straight and non-vertical, which is indeed consistent with a downward force. However, the lowest non-streaming metal pieces don't exhibit this characteristic (as far as I can tell), and as they have fallen further than the expanding powder or streaming chunks of building, it is not justified to identify them as the 'racing' debris.
* knowing very little about demolitions, my notions of what is naive or not may also be naive
** To attempt to answer my own question: it's conceivable that directed charges that pointed upwards were used throughout the building, but due to happenstance, what was directly above the "nub" got blown off to the side before the "nub" charges were exploded. The large size of the "nub" argues against this, and also the fact that the lack of the powder type ejecta in the nub implies that charges were placed on top of floors. I find that rather unlikely..... I mean, wouldn't somebody stumble over them?
You're really a true believer, ain't ya' Steve?
No, he did not disappoint.
steve, please show a photo or video that illustrates that large steel columns were ejected from the initial collapse floor(or higher) at the time of initial collapse(or earlier).
reasonwhy, don't answer my query with another question.
You answered you own question on the previous page
QUOTE
This is getting ridiculous. At least metamars and gordon know that nothing can fall faster than gravity allows UNLESS a vectored downward force acts in conjunction to the force of gravity.
Do not ask me any more questions.
Coastal,
Even though I suspect the links won't do any good for the people who are asking the questions, I posted them anyway, so as to eliminate any excuses, but in all HONESTY do you really think the people will check them out when they show without any doubt that the governmental fairy tale was indeed a lie?
Now sit back and watch the excuses people come up with after the links were posted.
Excuse: My speakers don't work and I can't hear it.
Excuse: The videos were on a site that promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories therefore I cannot watch them.
Excuse: The videos were edited.
Excuse: I was paid money to testify in court, which is illegal, therefore the videos are no good.
Instead of just watching the videos, studying the information and then commenting on them, the nit-wits, dim-wits and half-wits will come up with every excuse in the world why they won't open up their eyes and see, open up their ears and hear, but instead remain in continual darkness and ignorance, only exposing themselves to the regurgitated BS manufactured by the governmental propaganda machine.
Even though I suspect the links won't do any good for the people who are asking the questions, I posted them anyway, so as to eliminate any excuses, but in all HONESTY do you really think the people will check them out when they show without any doubt that the governmental fairy tale was indeed a lie?
Now sit back and watch the excuses people come up with after the links were posted.
Excuse: My speakers don't work and I can't hear it.
Excuse: The videos were on a site that promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories therefore I cannot watch them.
Excuse: The videos were edited.
Excuse: I was paid money to testify in court, which is illegal, therefore the videos are no good.
Instead of just watching the videos, studying the information and then commenting on them, the nit-wits, dim-wits and half-wits will come up with every excuse in the world why they won't open up their eyes and see, open up their ears and hear, but instead remain in continual darkness and ignorance, only exposing themselves to the regurgitated BS manufactured by the governmental propaganda machine.
QUOTE
good question, there will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
And who, exactly, is claiming that the debris "outran" the 'free-fall' of collapse? You also enjoy knocking down straw men, don't you?
These photographs of towers with billowing clouds, of course, constitute prima facie evidence of demolition. It takes a real faith in Fairy Tales to look at them and not notice this. Assigning Fairy Tale beliefs onto others who don't hold this belief is actually a secondary sin.
FEMA and NIST, of course, don't even attempt to explain these mushroom tops - either their huge volume, their speed of lateral ejection, the rate of clouds of ejecta creation as collapse ensues and how this could possibly be compatible with a pile driver notion of collapse, it's symmetry, the sublimating/powderizing nature of some of the chunks of building that fall off to the side and the upwards momentum of some of the pieces.
The last I checked, gravity was a downward pushing force. Yet, when I eyeball one of the streaming chunks of matter in the upper left in the photo I posted:
( 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html )
I get, as a minimum, an upward displacement of about 12 floors or 44 meters. That's close to half a football field.
So much for the "no evidence" broken records posters.
Also, the "nub" which points up and to the left is over half the width of the tower. It's also very high. IMHO, this is hard to explain via both FEMA Fairy Tales and also a naive demolition hypothesis.* It points to a directed energy source which acts more or less uniformly over a HUGE distance AND area. Why would an ordinary high explosive project a more or less uniform (ignoring the color change) "nub" of smoke over such a large distance and area?** Also, as far as I can tell, this nub is made of smoke, not the powderish ejecta that is being ejected from the side.
Oh, and by the way, some of the "downward streamers" in this photo look rather straight and non-vertical, which is indeed consistent with a downward force. However, the lowest non-streaming metal pieces don't exhibit this characteristic (as far as I can tell), and as they have fallen further than the expanding powder or streaming chunks of building, it is not justified to identify them as the 'racing' debris.
* knowing very little about demolitions, my notions of what is naive or not may also be naive
** To attempt to answer my own question: it's conceivable that directed charges that pointed upwards were used throughout the building, but due to happenstance, what was directly above the "nub" got blown off to the side before the "nub" charges were exploded. The large size of the "nub" argues against this, and also the fact that the lack of the powder type ejecta in the nub implies that charges were placed on top of floors. I find that rather unlikely..... I mean, wouldn't somebody stumble over them?
yesitdid,
I have a solution to your sound problem, because I'm sure it must difficult to hear critical information on videos without sound.
Solution: Turn on your speakers.
Hope that helps
Steve
I have a solution to your sound problem, because I'm sure it must difficult to hear critical information on videos without sound.
Solution: Turn on your speakers.
Hope that helps
Steve
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 3 2006, 03:49 PM)
yesitdid,
I have a solution to your sound problem, because I'm sure it must difficult to hear critical information on videos without sound.
Solution: Turn on your speakers.
Hope that helps
Steve
Oh , gee, yeah, that helps
NOT
metamars, the problem with having both a free fall collapse time and debris that is ahead of the progression of collapse is thatthe debris simply cannot outrun free fall. If explosives are supposed to show that this is possible then
a) the explosives must be imparting a downward force on the debris after it clears the building face
or
b)The debris had a head start and was ejected prior to the start of the collapse.
I have a solution to your sound problem, because I'm sure it must difficult to hear critical information on videos without sound.
Solution: Turn on your speakers.
Hope that helps
Steve
Oh , gee, yeah, that helps
NOT
metamars, the problem with having both a free fall collapse time and debris that is ahead of the progression of collapse is thatthe debris simply cannot outrun free fall. If explosives are supposed to show that this is possible then
a) the explosives must be imparting a downward force on the debris after it clears the building face
or
b)The debris had a head start and was ejected prior to the start of the collapse.
I would love to have some of the explosives the CD group claim were used in the WTC tower.
They have the most AMAZING properties.
They CUT huge Beams, but barely make a pop.
They are Focused to cut these huge beams, but as a side effect they still have energy to pulverize the surrounding concrete, and still barely make a pop.
They pulverize the concrete but remarkably rarely blow out windows. When they do, even without blast cloth, they only expel the minimum of debris.
They impart minimal horizontal energy to particles but they imbue them with a latent downward acting force, that waits till the particles clear the building to act.
They have the ability to "powderize" steel at a distance when desired and also melt it into huge puddles.
This miraculous HE can also withstand very high temps >250 C for extended periods of time and still go off to the millisecond when commanded by a remote control detonator.
SIMPLY AMAZING STUFF.
I've got it, a new name: UNOBTANIUM CURVE BALL HE.
Arthur
They have the most AMAZING properties.
They CUT huge Beams, but barely make a pop.
They are Focused to cut these huge beams, but as a side effect they still have energy to pulverize the surrounding concrete, and still barely make a pop.
They pulverize the concrete but remarkably rarely blow out windows. When they do, even without blast cloth, they only expel the minimum of debris.
They impart minimal horizontal energy to particles but they imbue them with a latent downward acting force, that waits till the particles clear the building to act.
They have the ability to "powderize" steel at a distance when desired and also melt it into huge puddles.
This miraculous HE can also withstand very high temps >250 C for extended periods of time and still go off to the millisecond when commanded by a remote control detonator.
SIMPLY AMAZING STUFF.
I've got it, a new name: UNOBTANIUM CURVE BALL HE.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Jan 3 2006, 02:08 PM)
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 3 2006, 06:15 AM)
He didn't disappoint, did he?
You're really a true believer, ain't ya' Steve?
No, he did not disappoint.
steve, please show a photo or video that illustrates that large steel columns were ejected from the initial collapse floor(or higher) at the time of initial collapse(or earlier).
reasonwhy, don't answer my query with another question.
Neither did metamars.
Note the slightly darker part of the tower where the puff comes from. It's called the technical services floors or mechanical levels. It doesn't surprise me the puffs are coming from there. As I said, this could be a number of things.
1) Debris under pressure falling down the core and pushing it's way out a smoke exhaust system on technical services level. It would be the path of least resistance.
2) Debris forced down by high pressure air down the core and blowing out the sky lobby. Another possible path of least resistance.
3) Debris forced down by high pressure air through the core and finding an opening on the technical services level which may have open elevator pits. (My favorite hypothesis.) It would seem to me the least of the paths of least resistance.
It's unlikely to be explosives in a controlled demolition. You need the "Puff" to happen before the building starts to move. That's obvious.
As far as the free fall speed, look at the photo metamars linked to. You can clearly see a pair of columns on the right of building in free fall. They have a stream of debris like a tail coming from the debris cloud....
Now look at the picture I posted. You don't see that pair of columns in the picture do you. That's because the columns are falling in free fall and are outpacing the fall of not only the towers, but the debris cloud which is also outpacing the towers.
Another fact I picked up from metamars photo. You can clearly see a piece of the core still standing at the very top of the debris cloud. When I first got into this debate I mentioned that I saw a video which shows a wall of the core standing by itself then falling apart about 2 seconds later.
Now stay with me...
If the core was blown apart in a controlled fashion, why is a piece of it still standing? Why wasn't it the first thing to drop like the other tower? Because in the other tower you saw the antenna drop a second before the building did.
In the very last photo on the right you can clearly see the core emerging from the cloud...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp7.html
So we know now FOR A FACT that they didn't blow the core from the bottom or the technical services level. So what was the "Puff"? If they didn't blow the core at that level then the charge must have been to the perimeter columns right? But the puff doesn't take out any columns so that can't be the case.
But I don't believe in a free fall collapse!
Puff? The "nub" I was referring to is over half the width of the tower. The height is even more. Thus, it's at least about 130 feet tall.
You basically seem to be implying that whatever geometry there was to the structure as it "fell", it was capable of forcing air in a directed path.
However, the sideways ejecta speaks to little structure at all (the directionality of it does, but the composition does not; the parsimonious explanation is therefore a sideways directed explosive force*), and furthermore the "origin" of both sideways ejecta and (mostly) upward pointing nub are in the same region (the origin being constrained by the footprint of the building, for one thing, and the same approximate height, for another). So, this hypothesized geometry has to have a "y" structure. It also has to last long enough (at least the upward pointing part of the "y") to allow the 'nub" to attain it's well defined shape through 130 feet.
* if you really could have a stack of pancakes, perfectly flat and perfectly symmetrical collapse, then I could conceive of a repeated "grind the walls, and then shatter the concrete floors" type of process where the sideways ejecta observed are not so incompatible with the horizontal part of a Y geometry. Two problems:
1) I consider that impossible, as Gordon's calculation clearly implies.. If I pretended otherwise, I'd have to change my name to adoucette. Even if I somehow believed that the columns could collapse, I have even less of a reason to think that the lateral part of each floor would not have collapse much more easily than the columns.
2) You'd have to then complicate this hypothesis such that the symmetry of our perfect pancakes is broken at the beginning of the collapse, so as to allow the upward pointing part of the Y geometry. Doing so would raise the question: what would drive the gravitational collapse of the side of the tower that the nub is emanating from? It's clearly unimpeded, and furthermore it's huge.
But I don't believe in a free fall collapse!
That wasn't for you
You basically seem to be implying that whatever geometry there was to the structure as it "fell", it was capable of forcing air in a directed path.
Your right, never gonna happen from a vertical force.
Arthur
But I don't believe in a free fall collapse!
Fine, steve posted a video that clearly states a free fall collapse.
However I note that the debris is several floors ahead of the collapse. Now , not knowing exactly where the collapse is at that point or where the debris originates or even the exact timeline of the details of the collapse it is impossible to say how much time lag the collapse has behind the falling debris.
I again do note that you at least know that there is nothing faster than free fall unless another downward force acts on an object.
Yet steve would have everyone believe that the collapse happened at a free fall rate that is somehow slower than the free fall rate for objects away from the sides of the towers.
BTW steve , I find now that my sound driver is missing. As I said I have been having trouble with the 'puter. In fact before Christmas the thing crashed and would not even boot up in safe mode or to a previous setting. I am doing good to have gotten this far. Maybe you could pray for my 'puter woes.(it can't hurt)
Well, according the the official Fairy Tale it is sold all over the place (no special demolitions licence to get ahold of this stuff)... It's available at your local Home Depot / Canadian Tire outlet...
It's called Kerosene. Simply Amazing why the demolition companies have not discovered this Yet !!!
Even more amazing, if the Kerosene doesn't do the job, simply pile a bunch of paper, and old computers together in a heap, light it on fire and watch it explode with sufficient force to send 30 ton chunks of steel 400 - 600 feet. (please don't attempt this paper & computer formula experiment in your backyard incinerator... You're likely to turn your whole city block into talcum-powder sized dust...
Why do we even bother to answer these idiot trolls?
Well said, but maybe some of our posts are not so much for the dim-witted numbskull's, (they know who they are) but for other people passing by who take a look at this thread.
Maybe if we never posted any of the true facts about what really happened then the entire world would be filled with numskulls, half-wits, dim-wits and nit-wits, like zombies in the night of the living dead.
So maybe we're just trying to shine a little light of truth in a very dark, dumbed down world of brain dead morons.
However, I agree it gets tiresome and frustrating when your trying to converse with people who have less intelligence than a rock.
Well, according the the official Fairy Tale it is sold all over the place (no special demolitions licence to get ahold of this stuff)... It's available at your local Home Depot / Canadian Tire outlet...
It's called Kerosene. Simply Amazing why the demolition companies have not discovered this Yet !!!
They have, its just the delivery mechanism, 200,000 lb aircraft at 450+ mph that makes it a tad expensive to use.
There is no evidence that kerosene alone would have done the trick.
NIST believes even with the impact, had the fire retardant stayed on it probably wouldn't have fallen.
The only Fairy Tale is the one you continue to try to spin.
Arthur
What an Amazing use of sophistry to obfuscate the obvious. This wacko 'rebuttal' (originally posted by the Schneibster as a HA HA GOT'CHA) Is Pure Nonsense (which is why I have not felt any need to address it before). I THOUGHT the answer was blatantly obvious to everyone, and that all those who see the Fairy Tale realize that it is a straw-man JOKE.
Tell us YID, Schneibster, et al... Did these free-falling 30 ton masses of steel columns jump out from the intact walls of the building below the area of the descending mushroom cloud as it raced down the building? No, they came from the area above the bottom of the exploding pressure wave (the 'exploding pressure wave' I speak of is the mushroom cloud which advances down the building).
Once these columnar pieces have been blown horizontally out from the face of the building and begin to fall, the only resistance they are facing is thin air. They are TRULY falling at 'free-fall' speeds. There is absolutely NOTHING RESISTING their fall...(EXCEPT THIN AIR).
Now, OBVIOUSLY they will fall faster than lower parts of the building (which haven't even been exploded yet by the sequentially timed detonations). You make a BIG Deal out of the fact that these parts are falling at true 'free-fall' speed (and are thus outpacing the advancing / descending explosive demolition of the building)...
Ooooohhhh... Ahhhhh !!!
Building demolitions do NOT cause the building to fall at 'free-fall' speeds. This is virtually impossible even in IMPLOSIVE DEMOLITIONS. This is because even in regular/conventional building demolitions, usually NOT EVERY COLUMN is cut by explosives - ONLY the main support structures. Gravity and tensional/torsional strain acts upon the lesser columns to bend & or fracture them. This takes 'TIME'. Although it may only take 10ths of seconds for gravity to accomplish the secondary tasks of over-loading and 'breaking apart' the rest of the structure (which has not actually been CUT by explosives), this RESISTANCE must still be overcome and hence even conventionally-demo'd buildings DO NOT FALL at FREE-FALL SPEEDS.
This is the straw-man that you set up, and then 'attack' in your sophist nonsense...
What an Amazing use of sophistry to obfuscate the obvious. This wacko 'rebuttal' (originally posted by the Schneibster as a HA HA GOT'CHA) Is Pure Nonsense (which is why I have not felt any need to address it before). I THOUGHT the answer was blatantly obvious to everyone, and that all those who see the Fairy Tale realize that it is a straw-man JOKE.
Tell us YID, Schneibster, et al... Did these free-falling 30 ton masses of steel columns jump out from the intact walls of the building below the area of the descending mushroom cloud as it raced down the building? No, they came from the area above the bottom of the exploding pressure wave (the 'exploding pressure wave' I speak of is the mushroom cloud which advances down the building).
Once these columnar pieces have been blown horizontally out from the face of the building and begin to fall, the only resistance they are facing is thin air. They are TRULY falling at 'free-fall' speeds. There is absolutely NOTHING RESISTING their fall...(EXCEPT THIN AIR).
Now, OBVIOUSLY they will fall faster than lower parts of the building (which haven't even been exploded yet by the sequentially timed detonations). You make a BIG Deal out of the fact that these parts are falling at true 'free-fall' speed (and are thus outpacing the advancing / descending explosive demolition of the building)...
Ooooohhhh... Ahhhhh !!!
Building demolitions do NOT cause the building to fall at 'free-fall' speeds. This is virtually impossible even in IMPLOSIVE DEMOLITIONS. This is because even in regular/conventional building demolitions, usually NOT EVERY COLUMN is cut by explosives - ONLY the main support structures. Gravity and tensional/torsional strain acts upon the lesser columns to bend & or fracture them. This takes 'TIME'. Although it may only take 10ths of seconds for gravity to accomplish the secondary tasks of over-loading and 'breaking apart' the rest of the structure (which has not actually been CUT by explosives), this RESISTANCE must still be overcome and hence even conventionally-demo'd buildings DO NOT FALL at FREE-FALL SPEEDS.
This is the straw-man that you set up, and then 'attack' in your sophist nonsense...
Paraphrased
"The CT's CLAIM that the buildings fell at FREE-FALL SPEEDS! We demonstrate BY the fact of TRUE Free-Falling Debris that it was falling faster than the advancing explosive demolition...Therefore... HA ! WE HAVE 'PROVED' The CT's are full of 'it.
You couldn't be more wrong in your straw-man attack.
Show me WHERE ... I, Hoffman, Metamars (or anyone else says the buildings fell at FREE-FALL SPEED). You are simply repeating Schneibsters [aka 'COmMoN SEnsE' ] BS in this area which has been de-bunked OVER, & OVER AGAIN (on this thread alone).
Fellow 'CT's... can you not see through this clear obfuscation attempt.
The 'Schneibster' pulled this same game from a number of different perspectives and was shot down in flames over this issue time & time again.
He now changes his user-name to 'cOMMoN senSE' and is STILL trying to present the same garbage (as IF it hasn't ALREADY been debunked).
The gravity-driven collapse supporters don't have a leg to stand on, so they just keep presenting the same garbage over & over, and they succeed in muddying the waters of honest investigation & analysis by changing a few words here and there (as if attempting to present NEW information).
I used to be, under the delusion that the likes of YID, Quack ('Coastal'), Schneibster and others could be swayed by honest intelligent debate...
I am long past believing in that Fairy Tale. These people have agendas. They have one purpose only, which is to attempt to hinder the spread of irrefutable information (which is already known), and to try to Block the dissemination and advancement of that Truth.
YID... You have the gall to call ME 'arrogant' !! ?? !!!
HA !
You have your nose so high in the air, it's no wonder you can't see where you're going... you're looking straight up into the clouds, and interpreting what you see there as 'Reality'...
castles... and elves... and eskimos... and windmill enemies which must be attacked.
Lemme tell you, young whippersnapper, you better lower that nose, because you are walking straight towards a cliff,
Oh Louise... nevermind, I see you have brought Thelma along...
Hi Quack !!! I see you still have J. Edgars dress in your closet.
Ready for the next leap off the cliff?
OK, now I have to go back a dozen pages or so to catch up with the latest Bull.
Cheers, All.
Happy New Year? ...IF this is not THE ONE that the trigger-happy Neo-Cons don't start lobbing the Nukes around.
Tell us YID, Schneibster, et al... Did these free-falling 30 ton masses of steel columns jump out from the intact walls of the building below the area of the descending mushroom cloud as it raced down the building? No, they came from the area above the bottom of the exploding pressure wave (the 'exploding pressure wave' I speak of is the mushroom cloud which advances down the building).
Glad to see that you finally get it!
Which is why I qualified my statement several times now in saying that nothing can go faster than free fall unless there is another force working on it other than gravity. I do believe that your example of jet engines would qualify as the source of another force.
Well said, but maybe some of our posts are not so much for the dim-witted numbskull's, (they know who they are) but for other people passing by who take a look at this thread.
Maybe if we never posted any of the true facts about what really happened then the entire world would be filled with numskulls, half-wits, dim-wits and nit-wits, like zombies in the night of the living dead.
So maybe we're just trying to shine a little light of truth in a very dark, dumbed down world of brain dead morons.
However, I agree it gets tiresome and frustrating when your trying to converse with people who have less intelligence than a rock.
Sorry Steve1957... sometimes I forget we are not talking to sentient beings when we are addressing the shills, but that the bigger purpose is as you say...
Quote: Well said, but maybe some of our posts are not so much for the dim-witted numbskull's, (they know who they are) but for other people passing by who take a look at this thread.
That's what InfoWars is all about.
Keep up the good work.
Hey, BTW, I haven't been able to keep up fully, but I noticed someone claimed that one of your videos states the buildings fell at FREE-FALL rates.
Please tell me it ain't so, or do some 'correcting' on that statement. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a building to fall at FREE-FALL Speed.
It can ONLY get CLOSE to it through Controlled Demolition. Even Controlled Demolitions CAN NOT fall at free-fall speeds due to RESISTANCE.
Resistance is that force of Physics which the gravity-collapse supporters think of as a fairy tale. But, unfortunately (for their theory) It is as REAL as Momentum and Conservation of Energy. They just like to dispense with some inconvenient facts which dont SUPPORT their theory (heh, Pun intended).
Hey, don't go including me as having great physics knowledge. I have no Masters or PhD's in the area of Physics. It is obvious to all that Metamars is the most qualified (in this area) on THIS thread.
(Interesting to note that the gravity-driven collapse supporters choose NOT to get any Physics Phd's, to back up their nonsensical claims...
but although they also are NOT qualified in this area choose rather to spar with him in that area... Also interesting that they 'dismiss' Prof Jones et-al as 'mere conspiracy quacks' as easily as they wish to dismiss you or I.
If anyone HASN'T noticed, the ONLY relevant 'qualification' that the Coastal Quack brings to ANY of these 'discussions' is his 'Attack the Messenger talents'...
Ohhhh, Yeah, he's an 'interested investigator' of 'evidence' All Right. (Hence my references to J.Edgar Hoover with regard to him). If you need to find 'Dirt', be assured that 'The Quack' somehow knows where to find it. You won't get any science, engineering, or physics from him, but if you need J.Edgar - just call 'Coastal'.
However, although I am NOT a mathematics/physics whiz, I do have empirical knowledge in the structural design side of this issue. Those who 'pretend' in this area I can easily pick out...
'YID', 'SChneibster/commON SEnse', 'Reality Check', 'Arthur adoucette' have NO experience related to this field at ALL, and (although they may be good 'Googlers') are full of BS when they start extrapolating & postulating in this field. I sincerely doubt they have ever ACTUALLY BUILT so much as a birdhouse in their lives. It comes through as clear as a bell through their sophist statments (to me).
On the other hand the poster 'gordon' (it is obvious to me) DOES HAVE empirical knowledge in this field... quite possibly even more so than I, and I for one would like to hear more of his input here related to the structural engineering of the building.
Another VERY KNOWLEDGEable person in this area is the 'deepthroat guy'... that anonymous poster who put together the Guardian/Nerdcities site soon after the official Fairy Tale was being spread. It is CLEAR to me that that anonymous author KNEW what he was talking about in structural design, and it also seems to me that he was one of the FIRST to begin exposing the Fairy Tale.
He seems to have 'disappeared' / 'gone underground'.
I Wonder what really happened to that guy? Where is he NOW? Was he MUCH too 'vocal' in the early days? A lot of his 'Guardian/Nerdcities' site (which has gone dead) is cached by Hoffman. For a while I thought it might have been Hoffman himself, but he swears up & down that the 'guardians' works were NOT his.
As for me... I am convinced the 'guardian' is dead now.
He was MUCH TOO vocal with his inside knowledge of the Towers construction (at a time when the propaganda machine was spitting out bs); and his disgust for the obvious BS {'The FEMA Fairy Tale is a JOKE'} to just have gone silent voluntarily... But
That's just my humble opinion.
Thanks, but I'm very rusty. Doesn't mean I forgot everything, but I haven't been crying for Ph.D. level physicist/engineers/applied mathematicians to look into this for nothing.
Also, I have to believe Gordon knows more physics than I do, and yes, even Schneibster. The way Schneibster uses physics is what I have a problem with. Then too, his key criticism of Hoffman had no merit. (He still disagrees.)
Anyway, how can anybody claim to understand the collapse of the building without considering energy dissipated in non-elastic deformation.
Thanks to Gordon, we have a handle on this.
Thanks, but I'm very rusty. Doesn't mean I forgot everything, but I haven't been crying for Ph.D. level physicist/engineers/applied mathematicians to look into this for nothing.
Also, I have to believe Gordon knows more physics than I do, and yes, even Schneibster. The way Schneibster uses physics is what I have a problem with. Then too, his key criticism of Hoffman had no merit. (He still disagrees.)
Anyway, how can anybody claim to understand the collapse of the building without considering energy dissipated in non-elastic deformation.
Thanks to Gordon, we have a handle on this.
I expect to see Gordon's face on Al Aljazeera after he shows his "Calculations" to an Arab structural engineer and they publish his findings. Until then I'll go with Schneibster, who's calculations proved the towers fell at much slower than free fall before I saw photo evidence. He also provided a neat little program which proves gravity driven free fall is possible.
That together with the logic in flying planes into a building AND blowing it up with such perfection that not even one structural engineer in the world comes out with a paper saying it couldn't happen doesn't pass the smell test... I'll lean toward normal collapse for now...
What IS it exactly about 'smelly things' which fixates you...
'Schneibster'... AKA - 'cOmmON sENSe'... AKA - 'CHUCKLES' ... ???
And WHO do you actually think you are 'fooling' with your hand-puppet charade?
Forget it...
Don't bother answering... It is a Rhetorical Question, and needs no answer.
Whassa-matta?... your good buddy 'Sho-Gun' not helping you out enough at GNN? Getting trounced there also???
Well, Schneibster... your calculations did NOT 'Prove' the towers fell ...
"at much slower than free fall"
As I said to Steve1957 'how much'?
You are great at explaining that the towers fell NOT AT FREE-Fall Speeds.
(Can we now ALL finally agree after 175 pages that the towers DID NOT fall at 'Free-Fall speeds'???)
They actually 'disintegrated' to the ground 'slower' than if you dropped a brick from the same height as the top of the towers? Any 'Problems/Disagreements' There ???
The question still remains (as I presented way back when)...
How MUCH 'SLOWER' SHOULD they have fallen (according to the gravity-driven collapse theory), Schniebster?
Seems to me that you have always tried to avoid doing those calculations.
Get on with proving your point. How MUCH SLOWER ???
We All (Already) Know that controlled demolitions can bring buildings down 'ALMOST AS FAST AS FREE-FALL'....
shall we agree upon NEAR 'free-fall' through THIN AIR ???
A 'gravity-driven' collapse MUST PROGRESS SLOWER than 'free-fall' OR controlled-demolitions. This (I Claim as FACT) due to the physics phenomena known as RESISTANCE. IF you disagree with what I Claim as FACT here, then please QUOTE this statement and show HOW a gravity-driven 'collapse' can proceed AS FAST as a Controlled Demolition (which is purposely designed to take out ALL major structural support systems throughout the entire building in a controlled fashion) ???
YID accuses me of being an 'arrogant' SOB? OK, FINE. I AM 'arrogant' in the face of LIES.
SHOW ME a valid structural engineering explaination of HOW this would be possible.
Bearing in mind that your 'possible' explaination can also be 'plausible' in the face of ALL other evidence collected to date.
Much has been said about 'sounds' of explosions, and sights of explosions (with great sophistry about how such things are NOT connected and only 'appear' to represent OTHER plausible explanations.
Really !!!???
Let me try to interject some REAL Common Sense here...
IF it LOOKS like a DUCK, and it SOUNDS like a DUCK, and it ACTS like a DUCK, Common Sense tells us... IT'S MOST LIKELY A DUCK !!!
The gravity-driven collapse supporters' wish to tell us... That is 'Unreasonable'...
It ONLY LOOKED like, SOUNDED like, And ACTED like a 'Duck'... but it Wasn't REALLY ...'A Duck' !!!
My apologies... I MUST be an IDIOT !!!
My apologies... I MUST be an IDIOT !!!
Jerry Russell PhD seems to think so.
"The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse." - Jerry Russell
Like Jerry Russel PhD. They find some scam who writes up a bunch of junk, then copies and pastes, or writes his name on the bottom and then they say, "See that proves it, explosives were not used"
True believer.....
.....must be one one Rev. Schuller's flock.
Ask Russell yourself, Sherlock.
jerry@911-strike.com
You're really a true believer, ain't ya' Steve?
No, he did not disappoint.
steve, please show a photo or video that illustrates that large steel columns were ejected from the initial collapse floor(or higher) at the time of initial collapse(or earlier).
reasonwhy, don't answer my query with another question.
Neither did metamars.
Note the slightly darker part of the tower where the puff comes from. It's called the technical services floors or mechanical levels. It doesn't surprise me the puffs are coming from there. As I said, this could be a number of things.
1) Debris under pressure falling down the core and pushing it's way out a smoke exhaust system on technical services level. It would be the path of least resistance.
2) Debris forced down by high pressure air down the core and blowing out the sky lobby. Another possible path of least resistance.
3) Debris forced down by high pressure air through the core and finding an opening on the technical services level which may have open elevator pits. (My favorite hypothesis.) It would seem to me the least of the paths of least resistance.
It's unlikely to be explosives in a controlled demolition. You need the "Puff" to happen before the building starts to move. That's obvious.
As far as the free fall speed, look at the photo metamars linked to. You can clearly see a pair of columns on the right of building in free fall. They have a stream of debris like a tail coming from the debris cloud....
Now look at the picture I posted. You don't see that pair of columns in the picture do you. That's because the columns are falling in free fall and are outpacing the fall of not only the towers, but the debris cloud which is also outpacing the towers.
Another fact I picked up from metamars photo. You can clearly see a piece of the core still standing at the very top of the debris cloud. When I first got into this debate I mentioned that I saw a video which shows a wall of the core standing by itself then falling apart about 2 seconds later.
Now stay with me...
If the core was blown apart in a controlled fashion, why is a piece of it still standing? Why wasn't it the first thing to drop like the other tower? Because in the other tower you saw the antenna drop a second before the building did.
In the very last photo on the right you can clearly see the core emerging from the cloud...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp7.html
So we know now FOR A FACT that they didn't blow the core from the bottom or the technical services level. So what was the "Puff"? If they didn't blow the core at that level then the charge must have been to the perimeter columns right? But the puff doesn't take out any columns so that can't be the case.
QUOTE
metamars, the problem with having both a free fall collapse time and debris that is ahead of the progression of collapse is thatthe debris simply cannot outrun free fall. If explosives are supposed to show that this is possible then
a) the explosives must be imparting a downward force on the debris after it clears the building face
or
b)The debris had a head start and was ejected prior to the start of the collapse.
a) the explosives must be imparting a downward force on the debris after it clears the building face
or
b)The debris had a head start and was ejected prior to the start of the collapse.
But I don't believe in a free fall collapse!
QUOTE
It doesn't surprise me the puffs are coming from there
Puff? The "nub" I was referring to is over half the width of the tower. The height is even more. Thus, it's at least about 130 feet tall.
You basically seem to be implying that whatever geometry there was to the structure as it "fell", it was capable of forcing air in a directed path.
However, the sideways ejecta speaks to little structure at all (the directionality of it does, but the composition does not; the parsimonious explanation is therefore a sideways directed explosive force*), and furthermore the "origin" of both sideways ejecta and (mostly) upward pointing nub are in the same region (the origin being constrained by the footprint of the building, for one thing, and the same approximate height, for another). So, this hypothesized geometry has to have a "y" structure. It also has to last long enough (at least the upward pointing part of the "y") to allow the 'nub" to attain it's well defined shape through 130 feet.
* if you really could have a stack of pancakes, perfectly flat and perfectly symmetrical collapse, then I could conceive of a repeated "grind the walls, and then shatter the concrete floors" type of process where the sideways ejecta observed are not so incompatible with the horizontal part of a Y geometry. Two problems:
1) I consider that impossible, as Gordon's calculation clearly implies.. If I pretended otherwise, I'd have to change my name to adoucette. Even if I somehow believed that the columns could collapse, I have even less of a reason to think that the lateral part of each floor would not have collapse much more easily than the columns.
2) You'd have to then complicate this hypothesis such that the symmetry of our perfect pancakes is broken at the beginning of the collapse, so as to allow the upward pointing part of the Y geometry. Doing so would raise the question: what would drive the gravitational collapse of the side of the tower that the nub is emanating from? It's clearly unimpeded, and furthermore it's huge.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 3 2006, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE
metamars, the problem with having both a free fall collapse time and debris that is ahead of the progression of collapse is thatthe debris simply cannot outrun free fall. If explosives are supposed to show that this is possible then
a) the explosives must be imparting a downward force on the debris after it clears the building face
or
b)The debris had a head start and was ejected prior to the start of the collapse.
a) the explosives must be imparting a downward force on the debris after it clears the building face
or
b)The debris had a head start and was ejected prior to the start of the collapse.
But I don't believe in a free fall collapse!
That wasn't for you
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 3 2006, 07:00 PM)
You basically seem to be implying that whatever geometry there was to the structure as it "fell", it was capable of forcing air in a directed path.
Your right, never gonna happen from a vertical force.
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 3 2006, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE
metamars, the problem with having both a free fall collapse time and debris that is ahead of the progression of collapse is thatthe debris simply cannot outrun free fall. If explosives are supposed to show that this is possible then
a) the explosives must be imparting a downward force on the debris after it clears the building face
or
b)The debris had a head start and was ejected prior to the start of the collapse.
a) the explosives must be imparting a downward force on the debris after it clears the building face
or
b)The debris had a head start and was ejected prior to the start of the collapse.
But I don't believe in a free fall collapse!
Fine, steve posted a video that clearly states a free fall collapse.
However I note that the debris is several floors ahead of the collapse. Now , not knowing exactly where the collapse is at that point or where the debris originates or even the exact timeline of the details of the collapse it is impossible to say how much time lag the collapse has behind the falling debris.
I again do note that you at least know that there is nothing faster than free fall unless another downward force acts on an object.
Yet steve would have everyone believe that the collapse happened at a free fall rate that is somehow slower than the free fall rate for objects away from the sides of the towers.
BTW steve , I find now that my sound driver is missing. As I said I have been having trouble with the 'puter. In fact before Christmas the thing crashed and would not even boot up in safe mode or to a previous setting. I am doing good to have gotten this far. Maybe you could pray for my 'puter woes.(it can't hurt)
Arthur,
Do you think Bin Laden suspended the laws of physics "that day"? Based upon you analysis that's a reasonable conclusion.
It must be frustrating to have worked so hard in creating a scenario where explosives were not used, only to be let down with those darn laws of physics.
Your explanation of what happened, IE; no explosives, but only pancakes would be such a wonderful story and perfect way to defend all the things you believe in such as Bush, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, the GOP, and even the DNC, because the pancake theory unites this country together in a common cause of war against terror.
Even the Democrats and Republicans can come together on this one and set aside their political differences for the time being in order to unite and go after that nasty old Bin Laden and his terrorist supporters who brought down the towers on 9/11.
How dare these people introduce things like truth and facts and logic concerning physics and gravity, when all it does is destroy the myth that the administration worked so hard at promoting. How dare these scum bags who believe in the principals found in the scriptures, including (Do not bare false witness...) How dare them introduce truthful statements about what really happened on 9/11, when all it does is undermine the very fabric of the stuff that united all the good American citizens who stand behind the president in the war against terror.
And so what if there was no direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, hell there was no direct connection between Bin Laden and 9/11 or Afghanistan and 9/11, but damn the torpedo's, it's full speed ahead to get those nasty Muslims, after all they're not christian any way, and since they don't tithe in American churches they're going to hell anyway.
So why let a little, tiny, insignificant thing like "The laws of physics and gravity" get in the way of all the things that makes this nation such a wonderful place to live?
And who do these people think they are displaying video's and scientific facts that prove beyond any doubt that explosives were used, when all they're doing is destroying the beautiful fairy tale that this nation has spent billions upon through their co-conspirators in the media. How dare them.
In fact, people who introduce the truth should be viewed upon as enemy combatants, aiding and abetting the enemy. Unless of course their willing to forget about the true laws of physics and gravity, (at least for 9/11) and join us in our effort to support the MYTH.
If Bin Laden didn't change the laws of physics on 9/11, there's plenty of other logical explanations that substantiate the governments fairy tale, how about this one, "The laws of physics took a vacation on 9/11" Yeah, that's it, that'll reasonably explain why the towers were able to react in a method that defies any and all sound reasoning, unless of course explosives were used.
But even remotely implying that explosives were used opens up a whole can of worms that totally destroys the current and popular fairy tale myth about pancake theories, so we can't have any of that, never mind the truth and the facts, we gotta get rid of the possibility of explosives at all costs, even our credibility.
Originally when I saw the towers collapsed I knew it was control demolition, just by the way the towers fell down, but I was shocked like everyone else, and didn't suspect little bush. I thought maybe even Saddam or some other terrorist group was somehow able to infiltrate the security systems, maybe by using some of their billions of dollars to bribe enough people to look the other way and then plant the bombs.
Yes, at first I didn't think our government would do such a thing but thought it was like an act of war from someone like Saddam, who had enough money and power to pull something like this off.
There's a thousand ways Saddam's people could have tricked the security people with enough money of course. And they could have pretended to be plumbers, electricians, cable and DSL people, decorators, office equipment repairmen, etc. etc. I thought they could have utilized a multitude of disguises in order to somehow get into the buildings and plant the bombs, and of course they would plant highly advanced explosives that would somehow be hidden from detection.
I didn't know how they did it, but any one with common sense who watched the towers come down knew explosives were somehow planted in the buildings before hand and the plane's crashing in were obviously some kind of diversion, and/or triggering of the event and who knows what else.
But as the government proceeded to deny that explosives were used and then all the other propaganda started pouring in, and all the other information about what happened behind the scenes, then it became obvious that the only way this could happen is with the governments assistance.
So when all the Popular Mechanics BS and other propaganda machines started nervously explaining their pancake theory, which defies all forms of reason and logic, it just became more obvious what was going on.
Some of us can barely remember glimpses of the McCarthy days or maybe some have seen the movie "Good night and good luck" We live in similar times, where anyone who introduces true facts about what happened on 9/11 becomes similar to a communist sympathizer and gets BLACK LISTED.
So think about it logically, do the people at Popular Mechanics want to get BLACK LISTED, and all those other scientists and engineers who imply the pancake fairy tale is credible, if they could speak what's really on their mind believe you me they wouldn't destroy their credibility by supporting a theory that is so half baked and so ridiculous most 1st graders can see through it. But when your faced with getting BLACK LISTED, fired, your government grant CUT-OFF, you know the saying "Don't cut off the hand that feeds you"? Well if these engineers were to say what they really think, they might as well take a hack-saw and cut off any and all government funding for the present and the future.
So it's perfectly understandable why it seems that 90% of the scientists and engineers may seem to support the fairy tale, (THEY DON'T WANT TO GET BLACK LISTED) But every once in a while you get a guy like professor Jones, who has enough "KAHUNAS" to speak the truth, or some might say "guts", or courage, although others might say he's crazy for speaking the truth, never the less, a few people value their own personal morals and consciences more than the fear of getting BLACK LISTED and so they speak out.
Which brings us to you and your buddies who try so hard to support the fairy tale. Only God knows the real reason why you guys hang on so tight to this OBVIOUS SCAM. Maybe you guys really are ignorant, blind, brainwashed and stupid, I don't know. Or maybe some of you are government plants, I don't know for sure, anythings possible.
But I will say this, "The truth will make you free"
Do you think Bin Laden suspended the laws of physics "that day"? Based upon you analysis that's a reasonable conclusion.
It must be frustrating to have worked so hard in creating a scenario where explosives were not used, only to be let down with those darn laws of physics.
Your explanation of what happened, IE; no explosives, but only pancakes would be such a wonderful story and perfect way to defend all the things you believe in such as Bush, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, the GOP, and even the DNC, because the pancake theory unites this country together in a common cause of war against terror.
Even the Democrats and Republicans can come together on this one and set aside their political differences for the time being in order to unite and go after that nasty old Bin Laden and his terrorist supporters who brought down the towers on 9/11.
How dare these people introduce things like truth and facts and logic concerning physics and gravity, when all it does is destroy the myth that the administration worked so hard at promoting. How dare these scum bags who believe in the principals found in the scriptures, including (Do not bare false witness...) How dare them introduce truthful statements about what really happened on 9/11, when all it does is undermine the very fabric of the stuff that united all the good American citizens who stand behind the president in the war against terror.
And so what if there was no direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, hell there was no direct connection between Bin Laden and 9/11 or Afghanistan and 9/11, but damn the torpedo's, it's full speed ahead to get those nasty Muslims, after all they're not christian any way, and since they don't tithe in American churches they're going to hell anyway.
So why let a little, tiny, insignificant thing like "The laws of physics and gravity" get in the way of all the things that makes this nation such a wonderful place to live?
And who do these people think they are displaying video's and scientific facts that prove beyond any doubt that explosives were used, when all they're doing is destroying the beautiful fairy tale that this nation has spent billions upon through their co-conspirators in the media. How dare them.
In fact, people who introduce the truth should be viewed upon as enemy combatants, aiding and abetting the enemy. Unless of course their willing to forget about the true laws of physics and gravity, (at least for 9/11) and join us in our effort to support the MYTH.
If Bin Laden didn't change the laws of physics on 9/11, there's plenty of other logical explanations that substantiate the governments fairy tale, how about this one, "The laws of physics took a vacation on 9/11" Yeah, that's it, that'll reasonably explain why the towers were able to react in a method that defies any and all sound reasoning, unless of course explosives were used.
But even remotely implying that explosives were used opens up a whole can of worms that totally destroys the current and popular fairy tale myth about pancake theories, so we can't have any of that, never mind the truth and the facts, we gotta get rid of the possibility of explosives at all costs, even our credibility.
Originally when I saw the towers collapsed I knew it was control demolition, just by the way the towers fell down, but I was shocked like everyone else, and didn't suspect little bush. I thought maybe even Saddam or some other terrorist group was somehow able to infiltrate the security systems, maybe by using some of their billions of dollars to bribe enough people to look the other way and then plant the bombs.
Yes, at first I didn't think our government would do such a thing but thought it was like an act of war from someone like Saddam, who had enough money and power to pull something like this off.
There's a thousand ways Saddam's people could have tricked the security people with enough money of course. And they could have pretended to be plumbers, electricians, cable and DSL people, decorators, office equipment repairmen, etc. etc. I thought they could have utilized a multitude of disguises in order to somehow get into the buildings and plant the bombs, and of course they would plant highly advanced explosives that would somehow be hidden from detection.
I didn't know how they did it, but any one with common sense who watched the towers come down knew explosives were somehow planted in the buildings before hand and the plane's crashing in were obviously some kind of diversion, and/or triggering of the event and who knows what else.
But as the government proceeded to deny that explosives were used and then all the other propaganda started pouring in, and all the other information about what happened behind the scenes, then it became obvious that the only way this could happen is with the governments assistance.
So when all the Popular Mechanics BS and other propaganda machines started nervously explaining their pancake theory, which defies all forms of reason and logic, it just became more obvious what was going on.
Some of us can barely remember glimpses of the McCarthy days or maybe some have seen the movie "Good night and good luck" We live in similar times, where anyone who introduces true facts about what happened on 9/11 becomes similar to a communist sympathizer and gets BLACK LISTED.
So think about it logically, do the people at Popular Mechanics want to get BLACK LISTED, and all those other scientists and engineers who imply the pancake fairy tale is credible, if they could speak what's really on their mind believe you me they wouldn't destroy their credibility by supporting a theory that is so half baked and so ridiculous most 1st graders can see through it. But when your faced with getting BLACK LISTED, fired, your government grant CUT-OFF, you know the saying "Don't cut off the hand that feeds you"? Well if these engineers were to say what they really think, they might as well take a hack-saw and cut off any and all government funding for the present and the future.
So it's perfectly understandable why it seems that 90% of the scientists and engineers may seem to support the fairy tale, (THEY DON'T WANT TO GET BLACK LISTED) But every once in a while you get a guy like professor Jones, who has enough "KAHUNAS" to speak the truth, or some might say "guts", or courage, although others might say he's crazy for speaking the truth, never the less, a few people value their own personal morals and consciences more than the fear of getting BLACK LISTED and so they speak out.
Which brings us to you and your buddies who try so hard to support the fairy tale. Only God knows the real reason why you guys hang on so tight to this OBVIOUS SCAM. Maybe you guys really are ignorant, blind, brainwashed and stupid, I don't know. Or maybe some of you are government plants, I don't know for sure, anythings possible.
But I will say this, "The truth will make you free"
Picture this, Cut a box in the middle of some large pancakes to represent the floors, then put a box made of vertical sticks tied together yet far enough apart to simulate the separation of the core columns. Tie it together with string. Remember that the core has the elevator shafts and other things which go straight down to the mechanical level. At the bottom of the pancakes put small flags made of tissue paper. At each pancake level put more said flags in the core. Now drop the pancakes.
The falling pancakes are are going to push all the air/flags that were under the pancake every which way it can. Out to the edge (What you see pushing the heavy columns out. Note the columns fall further away the lower it gets to ground level. This would be expected as the collapse picks up speed and energy as it adds weight. Or are they using heavier and heavier explosives on the way down? Why would they do that?) and YES, in to the core/sticks. It's going to push it in EVERY direction. If you also simulate the falling debris in the core and solids like elevators, elevator machinery and core landings and stairways its not unreasonable to expect a plunger effect forcing as much air and debris with as much speed and pressure as it can down the core. As I said, the place you see this "Nub" is where the mechanical levels are. The debris of a high-rise office is squashing everything on the remaining levels. Elevators might be falling at free fall speed. The difference is the core can relieve more pressure than the perimeter columns which have glass and perimeter columns. So it takes the path of least resistance.
It's also possible (As one fireman said) it was electrical explosions like transformers blowing up. You would expect to see transformers on mechanical levels. The point is the nub is inconclusive. The public has very little information on what was exactly in the mechanical levels and it's perimeter walls.
Look at this...
http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/demolition/
At the middle of the page is a flash slow motion video of one of those "Nubs". If you look at it frame by frame you'll see first the building is falling already. Then you'll see a wisp of air coming from the area where the "nub" is. As the building falls the wisp slowly becomes a large plume. This is NOT an explosion. An explosion doesn't start out slow then progress.
The falling pancakes are are going to push all the air/flags that were under the pancake every which way it can. Out to the edge (What you see pushing the heavy columns out. Note the columns fall further away the lower it gets to ground level. This would be expected as the collapse picks up speed and energy as it adds weight. Or are they using heavier and heavier explosives on the way down? Why would they do that?) and YES, in to the core/sticks. It's going to push it in EVERY direction. If you also simulate the falling debris in the core and solids like elevators, elevator machinery and core landings and stairways its not unreasonable to expect a plunger effect forcing as much air and debris with as much speed and pressure as it can down the core. As I said, the place you see this "Nub" is where the mechanical levels are. The debris of a high-rise office is squashing everything on the remaining levels. Elevators might be falling at free fall speed. The difference is the core can relieve more pressure than the perimeter columns which have glass and perimeter columns. So it takes the path of least resistance.
It's also possible (As one fireman said) it was electrical explosions like transformers blowing up. You would expect to see transformers on mechanical levels. The point is the nub is inconclusive. The public has very little information on what was exactly in the mechanical levels and it's perimeter walls.
Look at this...
http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/demolition/
At the middle of the page is a flash slow motion video of one of those "Nubs". If you look at it frame by frame you'll see first the building is falling already. Then you'll see a wisp of air coming from the area where the "nub" is. As the building falls the wisp slowly becomes a large plume. This is NOT an explosion. An explosion doesn't start out slow then progress.
Quite the impassioned lil speech steve-o but still no explanation on how that debris has managed to out run the free fall collapse.
Seems it is you who is re-writing the laws of physics.
Seems it is you who is re-writing the laws of physics.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Adoucette
I would love to have some of the explosives the CD group claim were used in the WTC tower.
They have the most AMAZING properties.
I would love to have some of the explosives the CD group claim were used in the WTC tower.
They have the most AMAZING properties.
Well, according the the official Fairy Tale it is sold all over the place (no special demolitions licence to get ahold of this stuff)... It's available at your local Home Depot / Canadian Tire outlet...
It's called Kerosene. Simply Amazing why the demolition companies have not discovered this Yet !!!
Even more amazing, if the Kerosene doesn't do the job, simply pile a bunch of paper, and old computers together in a heap, light it on fire and watch it explode with sufficient force to send 30 ton chunks of steel 400 - 600 feet. (please don't attempt this paper & computer formula experiment in your backyard incinerator... You're likely to turn your whole city block into talcum-powder sized dust...
Why do we even bother to answer these idiot trolls?
yesitdid,
It's easy to overcome a sound card problem in your computer, but mental blocks are something that might require a little more in depth assistance with.
But when and if the mental block is resolved and you have a chance to read this post I'll re-state it again.
When you say "Nothing is faster than free fall", even though that's not correct, because many things can accelerate objects faster than the speed of gravity, take an airplane for example, go up 30,000 feet then put your foot on the gas, pedal to the metal and floor it.
Top end out at about 600 miles per hour then steer the plane downward, yes go straight down at full throttle and you will be traveling much faster than free-fall speed.
But that's not the point of the conversation so I'll get back on track to the topic at hand and see if I can reason with you. Who knows miracles sometimes happen, and by the grace of God it may be you'll be able to comprehend a very simple point.
Let's say the mass on the 80th floor of the tower is collapsing at free-fall speed, but low and behold, debris are falling out the 50th floor and moving downward. How is this possible? How was that debris able to fall faster than all that mass on the 80th floor???
There's only one logical explanation that proves explosives were used, in fact the very question you ask is part of the proof of explosives.
#1 The charges BLEW OUT DEBRIS, then a split second later the top crashes in, as the explosives blew out the support that was holding it up.
HENCE, the debris were shot out FIRST, even a split second before, but never the less the EXPLOSION OCCURRED FIRST and then the top crashed in.
And the thing about control demolition is that explosives were planted on most all the floors and then TIMED TO BLOW AT THE RIGHT SEQUENCE, so as to REMOVE THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE, SO THAT THE TOWERS WOULD COLLAPSE.
That's why they call it CONTROL DEMOLITION, because they control and synchronize the timing of the explosions so that the building will collapse in a downward motion WITHOUT RESISTANCE.
You see RESISTANCE is an obstacle in control demolition that they need to RESOLVE, because RESISTANCE can cause serious problems if not dealt with, can you imagine what would have happened if the control demolition experts who brought the towers down made some errors in their calculations???
If they didn't REMOVE THE RESISTANCE factor the towers might have TIPPED OVER, now can you imagine the damage that would have happened if the towers TIPPED OVER? Let me tell you, it would have been FAR WORSE THAN WHAT WE SAW ON 9/11.
And so my dear boy, it's not that the debris descended at a faster rate so much, but the fact is the debris were blown up prior to the tops of the mass falling upon them, that's how control demolition works.
First the explosion, then the collapse, henceforth, first the debris shot out, then the collapse.
Now do you understand, or is there still a missing common sense card in your hard drive?
It's easy to overcome a sound card problem in your computer, but mental blocks are something that might require a little more in depth assistance with.
But when and if the mental block is resolved and you have a chance to read this post I'll re-state it again.
When you say "Nothing is faster than free fall", even though that's not correct, because many things can accelerate objects faster than the speed of gravity, take an airplane for example, go up 30,000 feet then put your foot on the gas, pedal to the metal and floor it.
Top end out at about 600 miles per hour then steer the plane downward, yes go straight down at full throttle and you will be traveling much faster than free-fall speed.
But that's not the point of the conversation so I'll get back on track to the topic at hand and see if I can reason with you. Who knows miracles sometimes happen, and by the grace of God it may be you'll be able to comprehend a very simple point.
Let's say the mass on the 80th floor of the tower is collapsing at free-fall speed, but low and behold, debris are falling out the 50th floor and moving downward. How is this possible? How was that debris able to fall faster than all that mass on the 80th floor???
There's only one logical explanation that proves explosives were used, in fact the very question you ask is part of the proof of explosives.
#1 The charges BLEW OUT DEBRIS, then a split second later the top crashes in, as the explosives blew out the support that was holding it up.
HENCE, the debris were shot out FIRST, even a split second before, but never the less the EXPLOSION OCCURRED FIRST and then the top crashed in.
And the thing about control demolition is that explosives were planted on most all the floors and then TIMED TO BLOW AT THE RIGHT SEQUENCE, so as to REMOVE THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE, SO THAT THE TOWERS WOULD COLLAPSE.
That's why they call it CONTROL DEMOLITION, because they control and synchronize the timing of the explosions so that the building will collapse in a downward motion WITHOUT RESISTANCE.
You see RESISTANCE is an obstacle in control demolition that they need to RESOLVE, because RESISTANCE can cause serious problems if not dealt with, can you imagine what would have happened if the control demolition experts who brought the towers down made some errors in their calculations???
If they didn't REMOVE THE RESISTANCE factor the towers might have TIPPED OVER, now can you imagine the damage that would have happened if the towers TIPPED OVER? Let me tell you, it would have been FAR WORSE THAN WHAT WE SAW ON 9/11.
And so my dear boy, it's not that the debris descended at a faster rate so much, but the fact is the debris were blown up prior to the tops of the mass falling upon them, that's how control demolition works.
First the explosion, then the collapse, henceforth, first the debris shot out, then the collapse.
Now do you understand, or is there still a missing common sense card in your hard drive?
QUOTE
Foxx
Why do we even bother to answer these idiot trolls?
Why do we even bother to answer these idiot trolls?
Well said, but maybe some of our posts are not so much for the dim-witted numbskull's, (they know who they are) but for other people passing by who take a look at this thread.
Maybe if we never posted any of the true facts about what really happened then the entire world would be filled with numskulls, half-wits, dim-wits and nit-wits, like zombies in the night of the living dead.
So maybe we're just trying to shine a little light of truth in a very dark, dumbed down world of brain dead morons.
However, I agree it gets tiresome and frustrating when your trying to converse with people who have less intelligence than a rock.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 3 2006, 09:59 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Adoucette
I would love to have some of the explosives the CD group claim were used in the WTC tower.
They have the most AMAZING properties.
I would love to have some of the explosives the CD group claim were used in the WTC tower.
They have the most AMAZING properties.
Well, according the the official Fairy Tale it is sold all over the place (no special demolitions licence to get ahold of this stuff)... It's available at your local Home Depot / Canadian Tire outlet...
It's called Kerosene. Simply Amazing why the demolition companies have not discovered this Yet !!!
They have, its just the delivery mechanism, 200,000 lb aircraft at 450+ mph that makes it a tad expensive to use.
There is no evidence that kerosene alone would have done the trick.
NIST believes even with the impact, had the fire retardant stayed on it probably wouldn't have fallen.
The only Fairy Tale is the one you continue to try to spin.
Arthur
cOmMoN sEnSe
One thing that's kind of hilarious, but all to obvious is how some people have to resort to using tissue paper and pancakes to describe thick heavy steel.
I know that pancakes and tissue paper work much better in your fairy tale, as the truth about just how strong those steel structured towers really were kind of get in the way of your fantasy, but take a good look a the steel cores, and then re-think your tissue paper theory.
Regarding the debris and why they appeared to fall faster than the top floors, try to look at this picture very closely...
Naaaa, that doesn't look anything like an explosion, that looks more like a bunch of pancakes falling on toothpicks and tissue paper.
Now look at this one and see if you can detect some of the EXPLOSIONS going off even before the tops crashed in on them.
Oh, that's right, I plumb forgot that the towers were made out of pancakes and tissue paper.
One thing that's kind of hilarious, but all to obvious is how some people have to resort to using tissue paper and pancakes to describe thick heavy steel.
I know that pancakes and tissue paper work much better in your fairy tale, as the truth about just how strong those steel structured towers really were kind of get in the way of your fantasy, but take a good look a the steel cores, and then re-think your tissue paper theory.
Regarding the debris and why they appeared to fall faster than the top floors, try to look at this picture very closely...
Naaaa, that doesn't look anything like an explosion, that looks more like a bunch of pancakes falling on toothpicks and tissue paper.
Now look at this one and see if you can detect some of the EXPLOSIONS going off even before the tops crashed in on them.
Oh, that's right, I plumb forgot that the towers were made out of pancakes and tissue paper.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 3 2006, 10:02 PM)
Let's say the mass on the 80th floor of the tower is collapsing at free-fall speed, but low and behold, debris are falling out the 50th floor and moving downward. How is this possible? How was that debris able to fall faster than all that mass on the 80th floor???
There's only one logical explanation that proves explosives were used, in fact the very question you ask is part of the proof of explosives.
#1 The charges BLEW OUT DEBRIS, then a split second later the top crashes in, as the explosives blew out the support that was holding it up.
HENCE, the debris were shot out FIRST, even a split second before, but never the less the EXPLOSION OCCURRED FIRST and then the top crashed in.
Too bad the VIDEO evidence does not support your wishful thinking.
See:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/
Go to videos Northwest and Nortwest.2
Both are short and show the start of the collapse of WTC1.
Both CLEARLY SHOW the top of the tower falling BEFORE any ejection from the side.
Since High Explosives Shock Front travels at 15,000 Ft per Second, there is no way the top could begin falling before ejecta came out, IF IT WAS INITIATED BY High Explosives.
THUS YOU ARE WRONG.
Arthur
There's only one logical explanation that proves explosives were used, in fact the very question you ask is part of the proof of explosives.
#1 The charges BLEW OUT DEBRIS, then a split second later the top crashes in, as the explosives blew out the support that was holding it up.
HENCE, the debris were shot out FIRST, even a split second before, but never the less the EXPLOSION OCCURRED FIRST and then the top crashed in.
Too bad the VIDEO evidence does not support your wishful thinking.
See:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/
Go to videos Northwest and Nortwest.2
Both are short and show the start of the collapse of WTC1.
Both CLEARLY SHOW the top of the tower falling BEFORE any ejection from the side.
Since High Explosives Shock Front travels at 15,000 Ft per Second, there is no way the top could begin falling before ejecta came out, IF IT WAS INITIATED BY High Explosives.
THUS YOU ARE WRONG.
Arthur
Arthur,
Great site, I looked at both Northwest and Nortwest.2 and not only does that prove control demolion, but that shows something I noticed early on, but the media hid those shots.
If you look closely, you will notice it appears the whole tower is moving downward, not like the pancake theory, but as if THE BOTTOM GAVE WAY and the whole building started collapsing in a downward motion.
In fact I wasn't sure what the significance was of the fire department guys who said the lobby in one of the towers EXPLODED well before the towers collapsed, it weakened the support from the ground up, which explains how the towers collapsed even before the fairy tale pancake theory was able to trick people.
Great site, I looked at both Northwest and Nortwest.2 and not only does that prove control demolion, but that shows something I noticed early on, but the media hid those shots.
If you look closely, you will notice it appears the whole tower is moving downward, not like the pancake theory, but as if THE BOTTOM GAVE WAY and the whole building started collapsing in a downward motion.
In fact I wasn't sure what the significance was of the fire department guys who said the lobby in one of the towers EXPLODED well before the towers collapsed, it weakened the support from the ground up, which explains how the towers collapsed even before the fairy tale pancake theory was able to trick people.
Steve,
We can discuss that later, what the videos DO show is that YOUR PREVIOUS DESCRIPTION was FALSE. There was NO EXPLOSION prior to the start of the collapse. No ejection of material PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE.
Admit that and we can go on with your NEW assertion.
Arthur
We can discuss that later, what the videos DO show is that YOUR PREVIOUS DESCRIPTION was FALSE. There was NO EXPLOSION prior to the start of the collapse. No ejection of material PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE.
Admit that and we can go on with your NEW assertion.
Arthur
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 3 2006, 10:47 PM)
Arthur,
Great site, I looked at both Northwest and Nortwest.2 and not only does that prove control demolion, but that shows something I noticed early on, but the media hid those shots.
If you look closely, you will notice it appears the whole tower is moving downward, not like the pancake theory, but as if THE BOTTOM GAVE WAY and the whole building started collapsing in a downward motion.
In fact I wasn't sure what the significance was of the fire department guys who said the lobby in one of the towers EXPLODED well before the towers collapsed, it weakened the support from the ground up, which explains how the towers collapsed even before the fairy tale pancake theory was able to trick people.
You're moving the target again, Steve.
Foxx is a lot better at it than you but it's still fun to watch you squirm.
Here's where you're going wrong, Stevie. You're falling into the 'Texas sharpshooter fallacy' trap.
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy where a cluster of statistically non-significant data is taken from its context, and therefore incorrectly believed to have a common cause. The name comes from a story about a Texan who fires his gun randomly at the side of a barn, and then paints a target centered on the largest cluster of hits. The fallacy is closely related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns in randomness where none actually exist.
I don't expect you to see this in your thinking.
True believers never do.
Great site, I looked at both Northwest and Nortwest.2 and not only does that prove control demolion, but that shows something I noticed early on, but the media hid those shots.
If you look closely, you will notice it appears the whole tower is moving downward, not like the pancake theory, but as if THE BOTTOM GAVE WAY and the whole building started collapsing in a downward motion.
In fact I wasn't sure what the significance was of the fire department guys who said the lobby in one of the towers EXPLODED well before the towers collapsed, it weakened the support from the ground up, which explains how the towers collapsed even before the fairy tale pancake theory was able to trick people.
You're moving the target again, Steve.
Foxx is a lot better at it than you but it's still fun to watch you squirm.
Here's where you're going wrong, Stevie. You're falling into the 'Texas sharpshooter fallacy' trap.
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy where a cluster of statistically non-significant data is taken from its context, and therefore incorrectly believed to have a common cause. The name comes from a story about a Texan who fires his gun randomly at the side of a barn, and then paints a target centered on the largest cluster of hits. The fallacy is closely related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns in randomness where none actually exist.
I don't expect you to see this in your thinking.
True believers never do.
QUOTE
Originally posted by the YID
good question, there will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
good question, there will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse.
What an Amazing use of sophistry to obfuscate the obvious. This wacko 'rebuttal' (originally posted by the Schneibster as a HA HA GOT'CHA) Is Pure Nonsense (which is why I have not felt any need to address it before). I THOUGHT the answer was blatantly obvious to everyone, and that all those who see the Fairy Tale realize that it is a straw-man JOKE.
Tell us YID, Schneibster, et al... Did these free-falling 30 ton masses of steel columns jump out from the intact walls of the building below the area of the descending mushroom cloud as it raced down the building? No, they came from the area above the bottom of the exploding pressure wave (the 'exploding pressure wave' I speak of is the mushroom cloud which advances down the building).
Once these columnar pieces have been blown horizontally out from the face of the building and begin to fall, the only resistance they are facing is thin air. They are TRULY falling at 'free-fall' speeds. There is absolutely NOTHING RESISTING their fall...(EXCEPT THIN AIR).
Now, OBVIOUSLY they will fall faster than lower parts of the building (which haven't even been exploded yet by the sequentially timed detonations). You make a BIG Deal out of the fact that these parts are falling at true 'free-fall' speed (and are thus outpacing the advancing / descending explosive demolition of the building)...
Ooooohhhh... Ahhhhh !!!
Building demolitions do NOT cause the building to fall at 'free-fall' speeds. This is virtually impossible even in IMPLOSIVE DEMOLITIONS. This is because even in regular/conventional building demolitions, usually NOT EVERY COLUMN is cut by explosives - ONLY the main support structures. Gravity and tensional/torsional strain acts upon the lesser columns to bend & or fracture them. This takes 'TIME'. Although it may only take 10ths of seconds for gravity to accomplish the secondary tasks of over-loading and 'breaking apart' the rest of the structure (which has not actually been CUT by explosives), this RESISTANCE must still be overcome and hence even conventionally-demo'd buildings DO NOT FALL at FREE-FALL SPEEDS.
This is the straw-man that you set up, and then 'attack' in your sophist nonsense...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by the YID good question, there will no answer forthcoming from Foxx or metamars or others on how that debris managed to outrun the 'free-fall' of the collapse. |
What an Amazing use of sophistry to obfuscate the obvious. This wacko 'rebuttal' (originally posted by the Schneibster as a HA HA GOT'CHA) Is Pure Nonsense (which is why I have not felt any need to address it before). I THOUGHT the answer was blatantly obvious to everyone, and that all those who see the Fairy Tale realize that it is a straw-man JOKE.
Tell us YID, Schneibster, et al... Did these free-falling 30 ton masses of steel columns jump out from the intact walls of the building below the area of the descending mushroom cloud as it raced down the building? No, they came from the area above the bottom of the exploding pressure wave (the 'exploding pressure wave' I speak of is the mushroom cloud which advances down the building).
Once these columnar pieces have been blown horizontally out from the face of the building and begin to fall, the only resistance they are facing is thin air. They are TRULY falling at 'free-fall' speeds. There is absolutely NOTHING RESISTING their fall...(EXCEPT THIN AIR).
Now, OBVIOUSLY they will fall faster than lower parts of the building (which haven't even been exploded yet by the sequentially timed detonations). You make a BIG Deal out of the fact that these parts are falling at true 'free-fall' speed (and are thus outpacing the advancing / descending explosive demolition of the building)...
Ooooohhhh... Ahhhhh !!!
Building demolitions do NOT cause the building to fall at 'free-fall' speeds. This is virtually impossible even in IMPLOSIVE DEMOLITIONS. This is because even in regular/conventional building demolitions, usually NOT EVERY COLUMN is cut by explosives - ONLY the main support structures. Gravity and tensional/torsional strain acts upon the lesser columns to bend & or fracture them. This takes 'TIME'. Although it may only take 10ths of seconds for gravity to accomplish the secondary tasks of over-loading and 'breaking apart' the rest of the structure (which has not actually been CUT by explosives), this RESISTANCE must still be overcome and hence even conventionally-demo'd buildings DO NOT FALL at FREE-FALL SPEEDS.
This is the straw-man that you set up, and then 'attack' in your sophist nonsense...
Paraphrased
"The CT's CLAIM that the buildings fell at FREE-FALL SPEEDS! We demonstrate BY the fact of TRUE Free-Falling Debris that it was falling faster than the advancing explosive demolition...Therefore... HA ! WE HAVE 'PROVED' The CT's are full of 'it.
You couldn't be more wrong in your straw-man attack.
Show me WHERE ... I, Hoffman, Metamars (or anyone else says the buildings fell at FREE-FALL SPEED). You are simply repeating Schneibsters [aka 'COmMoN SEnsE' ] BS in this area which has been de-bunked OVER, & OVER AGAIN (on this thread alone).
Fellow 'CT's... can you not see through this clear obfuscation attempt.
The 'Schneibster' pulled this same game from a number of different perspectives and was shot down in flames over this issue time & time again.
He now changes his user-name to 'cOMMoN senSE' and is STILL trying to present the same garbage (as IF it hasn't ALREADY been debunked).
The gravity-driven collapse supporters don't have a leg to stand on, so they just keep presenting the same garbage over & over, and they succeed in muddying the waters of honest investigation & analysis by changing a few words here and there (as if attempting to present NEW information).
I used to be, under the delusion that the likes of YID, Quack ('Coastal'), Schneibster and others could be swayed by honest intelligent debate...
I am long past believing in that Fairy Tale. These people have agendas. They have one purpose only, which is to attempt to hinder the spread of irrefutable information (which is already known), and to try to Block the dissemination and advancement of that Truth.
YID... You have the gall to call ME 'arrogant' !! ?? !!!
HA !
You have your nose so high in the air, it's no wonder you can't see where you're going... you're looking straight up into the clouds, and interpreting what you see there as 'Reality'...
castles... and elves... and eskimos... and windmill enemies which must be attacked.
Lemme tell you, young whippersnapper, you better lower that nose, because you are walking straight towards a cliff,
Oh Louise... nevermind, I see you have brought Thelma along...
Hi Quack !!! I see you still have J. Edgars dress in your closet.
Ready for the next leap off the cliff?
OK, now I have to go back a dozen pages or so to catch up with the latest Bull.
Cheers, All.
Happy New Year? ...IF this is not THE ONE that the trigger-happy Neo-Cons don't start lobbing the Nukes around.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 3 2006, 11:14 PM)
Tell us YID, Schneibster, et al... Did these free-falling 30 ton masses of steel columns jump out from the intact walls of the building below the area of the descending mushroom cloud as it raced down the building? No, they came from the area above the bottom of the exploding pressure wave (the 'exploding pressure wave' I speak of is the mushroom cloud which advances down the building).
Glad to see that you finally get it!
QUOTE
When you say "Nothing is faster than free fall", even though that's not correct, because many things can accelerate objects faster than the speed of gravity, take an airplane for example, go up 30,000 feet then put your foot on the gas, pedal to the metal and floor it.
Top end out at about 600 miles per hour then steer the plane downward, yes go straight down at full throttle and you will be traveling much faster than free-fall speed
.Top end out at about 600 miles per hour then steer the plane downward, yes go straight down at full throttle and you will be traveling much faster than free-fall speed
Which is why I qualified my statement several times now in saying that nothing can go faster than free fall unless there is another force working on it other than gravity. I do believe that your example of jet engines would qualify as the source of another force.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When you say "Nothing is faster than free fall", even though that's not correct, because many things can accelerate objects faster than the speed of gravity, take an airplane for example, go up 30,000 feet then put your foot on the gas, pedal to the metal and floor it. Top end out at about 600 miles per hour then steer the plane downward, yes go straight down at full throttle and you will be traveling much faster than free-fall speed |
.
Which is why I qualified my statement several times now in saying that nothing can go faster than free fall unless there is another force working on it other than gravity. I do believe that your example of jet engines would qualify as the source of another force.
Let's say the mass on the 80th floor of the tower is collapsing at free-fall speed, but low and behold, debris are falling out the 50th floor and moving downward. How is this possible? How was that debris able to fall faster than all that mass on the 80th floor???
There's only one logical explanation that proves explosives were used, in fact the very question you ask is part of the proof of explosives.
#1 The charges BLEW OUT DEBRIS, then a split second later the top crashes in, as the explosives blew out the support that was holding it up.
HENCE, the debris were shot out FIRST, even a split second before, but never the less the EXPLOSION OCCURRED FIRST and then the top crashed in.
As pointed out the video evidence does not support this view. Even in your own videos nothing gets ejected prior to the collapse initiation.
However let's do the math shall we.
You state that ejecta was thrown out a "spilt second" before the collapse started and that explains the debris ahead of the collapse.
OK shall we say, just to use a round number, that the ejecta came out at 800 feet agl and that the collapse started at the same point 0.1 seconds later.
At 0.1 seconds this ejecta would have travelled 0.16 feet feet and be moving at 3.2 feet/sec while the collapse has yet to start
At 1.0 seconds the ejecta has moved 16 feet and is travelling at 32 feet/second while the collapse would have progressed 13 feet and been moving at 29 feet /sec
(ejecta is 3 feet ahead of the collapse)
skip to 7 seconds (about 75% of the collapse time) after the ejecta has left the building, it is has gone 784 feet and is moving at 224 feet/sec, the collapse has progressed 762 feet and is progressing at 221 feet/sec
(Ejecta is only 22 feet ahead of the collapse)
Here the debris is certainly much more than 22 feet ahead of the collapse and the debris has not yet reached an altitude of a mere dozen or so feet from the ground. Obviously either the debris was ejecta much sooner than 0.1 seconds before the collapse started or it is falling faster than the collapse is progressing.
So what is wrong with having it fall a lot sooner than 0.1 seconds before the collapse? Any delay between the ejection of columns and the start of the collapse would be very, very noticable. Yet, as was pointed out, there is no evidence of these columns being ejected prior to the initiation of the collapse.
Were the columns contained in the puffs of dust seen exiting the windows below the collapse? No, that too would be quite obvious, instead all we see in those puffs is small objects, no columns.
Trouble with this old-timer, is that the entire building would fall all at once in this senario. Blowing the floors only as the upper sections impact a floor will NOT allow a free fall time of collapse. In order for it to be free fall time then all floors must be blown at the same time.
This is not evidenced by the videos.
Which is why I qualified my statement several times now in saying that nothing can go faster than free fall unless there is another force working on it other than gravity. I do believe that your example of jet engines would qualify as the source of another force.
Let's say the mass on the 80th floor of the tower is collapsing at free-fall speed, but low and behold, debris are falling out the 50th floor and moving downward. How is this possible? How was that debris able to fall faster than all that mass on the 80th floor???
There's only one logical explanation that proves explosives were used, in fact the very question you ask is part of the proof of explosives.
#1 The charges BLEW OUT DEBRIS, then a split second later the top crashes in, as the explosives blew out the support that was holding it up.
HENCE, the debris were shot out FIRST, even a split second before, but never the less the EXPLOSION OCCURRED FIRST and then the top crashed in.
As pointed out the video evidence does not support this view. Even in your own videos nothing gets ejected prior to the collapse initiation.
However let's do the math shall we.
You state that ejecta was thrown out a "spilt second" before the collapse started and that explains the debris ahead of the collapse.
OK shall we say, just to use a round number, that the ejecta came out at 800 feet agl and that the collapse started at the same point 0.1 seconds later.
At 0.1 seconds this ejecta would have travelled 0.16 feet feet and be moving at 3.2 feet/sec while the collapse has yet to start
At 1.0 seconds the ejecta has moved 16 feet and is travelling at 32 feet/second while the collapse would have progressed 13 feet and been moving at 29 feet /sec
(ejecta is 3 feet ahead of the collapse)
skip to 7 seconds (about 75% of the collapse time) after the ejecta has left the building, it is has gone 784 feet and is moving at 224 feet/sec, the collapse has progressed 762 feet and is progressing at 221 feet/sec
(Ejecta is only 22 feet ahead of the collapse)
Here the debris is certainly much more than 22 feet ahead of the collapse and the debris has not yet reached an altitude of a mere dozen or so feet from the ground. Obviously either the debris was ejecta much sooner than 0.1 seconds before the collapse started or it is falling faster than the collapse is progressing.
So what is wrong with having it fall a lot sooner than 0.1 seconds before the collapse? Any delay between the ejection of columns and the start of the collapse would be very, very noticable. Yet, as was pointed out, there is no evidence of these columns being ejected prior to the initiation of the collapse.
Were the columns contained in the puffs of dust seen exiting the windows below the collapse? No, that too would be quite obvious, instead all we see in those puffs is small objects, no columns.
QUOTE
And the thing about control demolition is that explosives were planted on most all the floors and then TIMED TO BLOW AT THE RIGHT SEQUENCE, so as to REMOVE THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE, SO THAT THE TOWERS WOULD COLLAPSE.
That's why they call it CONTROL DEMOLITION, because they control and synchronize the timing of the explosions so that the building will collapse in a downward motion WITHOUT RESISTANCE.
You see RESISTANCE is an obstacle in control demolition that they need to RESOLVE, because RESISTANCE can cause serious problems if not dealt with, can you imagine what would have happened if the control demolition experts who brought the towers down made some errors in their calculations???
If they didn't REMOVE THE RESISTANCE factor the towers might have TIPPED OVER, now can you imagine the damage that would have happened if the towers TIPPED OVER? Let me tell you, it would have been FAR WORSE THAN WHAT WE SAW ON 9/11.
That's why they call it CONTROL DEMOLITION, because they control and synchronize the timing of the explosions so that the building will collapse in a downward motion WITHOUT RESISTANCE.
You see RESISTANCE is an obstacle in control demolition that they need to RESOLVE, because RESISTANCE can cause serious problems if not dealt with, can you imagine what would have happened if the control demolition experts who brought the towers down made some errors in their calculations???
If they didn't REMOVE THE RESISTANCE factor the towers might have TIPPED OVER, now can you imagine the damage that would have happened if the towers TIPPED OVER? Let me tell you, it would have been FAR WORSE THAN WHAT WE SAW ON 9/11.
Trouble with this old-timer, is that the entire building would fall all at once in this senario. Blowing the floors only as the upper sections impact a floor will NOT allow a free fall time of collapse. In order for it to be free fall time then all floors must be blown at the same time.
This is not evidenced by the videos.
Coastal,
I'll have to agree with you that Foxx, and Meltamer, (hope I spelled that right) probably have a lot more knowledge in physics than I do, after all, I'm just a stupid con-man, scum bagg, bible nut, wacko, conspiracy theory nut.
In fact I don't even understand all that much about Texas cleties, but it is obvious even to people with low intelligence, such as myself is that explosives were used, plain and simple. In fact it must be embarrassing that a person like myself who is not educated in physics is able to put people with PHD's to shame, not because of my educational background, but rather because I can point out what they so obviously neglect, cover up and lie about.
You see my dear boy, you don't need a doctorate in physics or even a masters degree at MIT to be able to utilize that grey matter between your ears just enough to watch explosions going off.
As far as the free-fall speed argument, it's like splitting hairs on an issue that has no relevance. If in fact the buildings didn't fall at EXACT free-fall speeds, but close enough, then that alone proves demolition, because of the RESISTANCE FACTOR.
You see the fact that the support columns were blown up, or at least enough to weaken the structure so much that they offered virtually no resistance explains why the towers collapsed in the manner they did, where as if the steel had not been blown up it would have RESISTED THE FALL.
You don't even have to have all that much experience in control demolition to be able to grasp the concept of SYNCHRONIZED EXPLOSIVE CHARGES, strategically placed in various areas of the building in order to cause the downward motion of gravity to occur.
But then again, this all based on using truth, facts and common sense, which just so happens to be an enemy of those who support the MYTH.
All you have to do is look at the picture to see the explosion
I've heard it said that science is something you can repeat, well take a look at these pictures of a building that was on fire for about 19 hours. Notice the heat was much more intense and it burned much longer than the WTC
Now look at the metal structure after 19 hours of burning
In fact there's even a crane on top of the building
This is what REALLY happens to steel frame structures that caught on fire.
Now if you want to see what causes buildings to collapse like the WTC you'll need to look at CONTROL DEMOLITION VIDEOS
I'll have to agree with you that Foxx, and Meltamer, (hope I spelled that right) probably have a lot more knowledge in physics than I do, after all, I'm just a stupid con-man, scum bagg, bible nut, wacko, conspiracy theory nut.
In fact I don't even understand all that much about Texas cleties, but it is obvious even to people with low intelligence, such as myself is that explosives were used, plain and simple. In fact it must be embarrassing that a person like myself who is not educated in physics is able to put people with PHD's to shame, not because of my educational background, but rather because I can point out what they so obviously neglect, cover up and lie about.
You see my dear boy, you don't need a doctorate in physics or even a masters degree at MIT to be able to utilize that grey matter between your ears just enough to watch explosions going off.
As far as the free-fall speed argument, it's like splitting hairs on an issue that has no relevance. If in fact the buildings didn't fall at EXACT free-fall speeds, but close enough, then that alone proves demolition, because of the RESISTANCE FACTOR.
You see the fact that the support columns were blown up, or at least enough to weaken the structure so much that they offered virtually no resistance explains why the towers collapsed in the manner they did, where as if the steel had not been blown up it would have RESISTED THE FALL.
You don't even have to have all that much experience in control demolition to be able to grasp the concept of SYNCHRONIZED EXPLOSIVE CHARGES, strategically placed in various areas of the building in order to cause the downward motion of gravity to occur.
But then again, this all based on using truth, facts and common sense, which just so happens to be an enemy of those who support the MYTH.
All you have to do is look at the picture to see the explosion
I've heard it said that science is something you can repeat, well take a look at these pictures of a building that was on fire for about 19 hours. Notice the heat was much more intense and it burned much longer than the WTC
Now look at the metal structure after 19 hours of burning
In fact there's even a crane on top of the building
This is what REALLY happens to steel frame structures that caught on fire.
Now if you want to see what causes buildings to collapse like the WTC you'll need to look at CONTROL DEMOLITION VIDEOS
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 3 2006, 10:15 PM)
QUOTE
Foxx
Why do we even bother to answer these idiot trolls?
Why do we even bother to answer these idiot trolls?
Well said, but maybe some of our posts are not so much for the dim-witted numbskull's, (they know who they are) but for other people passing by who take a look at this thread.
Maybe if we never posted any of the true facts about what really happened then the entire world would be filled with numskulls, half-wits, dim-wits and nit-wits, like zombies in the night of the living dead.
So maybe we're just trying to shine a little light of truth in a very dark, dumbed down world of brain dead morons.
However, I agree it gets tiresome and frustrating when your trying to converse with people who have less intelligence than a rock.
Sorry Steve1957... sometimes I forget we are not talking to sentient beings when we are addressing the shills, but that the bigger purpose is as you say...
Quote: Well said, but maybe some of our posts are not so much for the dim-witted numbskull's, (they know who they are) but for other people passing by who take a look at this thread.
That's what InfoWars is all about.
Keep up the good work.
Hey, BTW, I haven't been able to keep up fully, but I noticed someone claimed that one of your videos states the buildings fell at FREE-FALL rates.
Please tell me it ain't so, or do some 'correcting' on that statement. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a building to fall at FREE-FALL Speed.
It can ONLY get CLOSE to it through Controlled Demolition. Even Controlled Demolitions CAN NOT fall at free-fall speeds due to RESISTANCE.
Resistance is that force of Physics which the gravity-collapse supporters think of as a fairy tale. But, unfortunately (for their theory) It is as REAL as Momentum and Conservation of Energy. They just like to dispense with some inconvenient facts which dont SUPPORT their theory (heh, Pun intended).
yesitdid,
So another words, even though 99.99% of the characteristics observed in the collapse of the towers appears to be control demolition, you just can't buy it because you can't understand why the debris is moving so fast.
Could it be possible that the explosives used were a little more powerful than you anticipated. I mean your assuming they will shoot out at a certain speed, corresponding to a certain speed the upper floors are collapsing, but how can you possibly assume to know the exact speed the debris was traveling when it was blown out of the exterior?
You're practically admitting it was BLOWN OUT WITH EXPLOSIVES, your just having difficulties in calculating the exact speed the debris were traveling at in relation to the speed of the decent of the upper floor.
Maybe Foxx or one of the more knowledgeable individuals with TRUE COMMON SENSE can help you out there.
As I said before there are many mysteries, and things we may never know, such as what kinds of bombs were used, how many floors did they use them on, and what was the exact timing of the explosives, we could also waste time on which governmental officials were involved and what specific jobs did they each have, yada, yada, yada.
The point is it's irrelevant to the situation at hand, THE FIRST STEP IS COMING TO TERMS WITH THE FACT THAT EXPLOSIVES WERE USED, then we can graduate into more in depth and detailed analysis.
But if we're blinded to the facts, and still hung up on issues that even pre-schoolers should know, then it makes it very difficult to advance to the next level of comprehension.
So another words, even though 99.99% of the characteristics observed in the collapse of the towers appears to be control demolition, you just can't buy it because you can't understand why the debris is moving so fast.
Could it be possible that the explosives used were a little more powerful than you anticipated. I mean your assuming they will shoot out at a certain speed, corresponding to a certain speed the upper floors are collapsing, but how can you possibly assume to know the exact speed the debris was traveling when it was blown out of the exterior?
You're practically admitting it was BLOWN OUT WITH EXPLOSIVES, your just having difficulties in calculating the exact speed the debris were traveling at in relation to the speed of the decent of the upper floor.
Maybe Foxx or one of the more knowledgeable individuals with TRUE COMMON SENSE can help you out there.
As I said before there are many mysteries, and things we may never know, such as what kinds of bombs were used, how many floors did they use them on, and what was the exact timing of the explosives, we could also waste time on which governmental officials were involved and what specific jobs did they each have, yada, yada, yada.
The point is it's irrelevant to the situation at hand, THE FIRST STEP IS COMING TO TERMS WITH THE FACT THAT EXPLOSIVES WERE USED, then we can graduate into more in depth and detailed analysis.
But if we're blinded to the facts, and still hung up on issues that even pre-schoolers should know, then it makes it very difficult to advance to the next level of comprehension.
Foxx
The videos say they fell at NEAR FREE-FALL SPEEDS. It may have been a fraction of a second off, but NEAR FREE FALL SPEEDS is close enough for it to be control demolition.
It's possible on one of the videos they may have said it was VIRTUALLY FREE FALL SPEED, and there is evidence from various seismographs that show it was very, very close.
The videos say they fell at NEAR FREE-FALL SPEEDS. It may have been a fraction of a second off, but NEAR FREE FALL SPEEDS is close enough for it to be control demolition.
It's possible on one of the videos they may have said it was VIRTUALLY FREE FALL SPEED, and there is evidence from various seismographs that show it was very, very close.
Yesitdid, heres more proof of an explosion. Did you see the larger section of column on the other side of the building? The one with a trail coming from the cloud?
Now look at the cloud in the same spot on this picture.
Note the photo was taken from around the same spot. You can tell by the other tower. Also note in one shot the beam isn't there and in the next it's there with a tell tail trail coming from the cloud. This proves the bomb exploded while the peremiter beam was in the cloud and on the way down!
Now look at the cloud in the same spot on this picture.
Note the photo was taken from around the same spot. You can tell by the other tower. Also note in one shot the beam isn't there and in the next it's there with a tell tail trail coming from the cloud. This proves the bomb exploded while the peremiter beam was in the cloud and on the way down!
QUOTE
Originally posted by Steve 1957
I'll have to agree with you that Foxx, and Meltamer {metamars}, (hope I spelled that right) probably have a lot more knowledge in physics than I do.
I'll have to agree with you that Foxx, and Meltamer {metamars}, (hope I spelled that right) probably have a lot more knowledge in physics than I do.
Hey, don't go including me as having great physics knowledge. I have no Masters or PhD's in the area of Physics. It is obvious to all that Metamars is the most qualified (in this area) on THIS thread.
(Interesting to note that the gravity-driven collapse supporters choose NOT to get any Physics Phd's, to back up their nonsensical claims...
but although they also are NOT qualified in this area choose rather to spar with him in that area... Also interesting that they 'dismiss' Prof Jones et-al as 'mere conspiracy quacks' as easily as they wish to dismiss you or I.
If anyone HASN'T noticed, the ONLY relevant 'qualification' that the Coastal Quack brings to ANY of these 'discussions' is his 'Attack the Messenger talents'...
Ohhhh, Yeah, he's an 'interested investigator' of 'evidence' All Right. (Hence my references to J.Edgar Hoover with regard to him). If you need to find 'Dirt', be assured that 'The Quack' somehow knows where to find it. You won't get any science, engineering, or physics from him, but if you need J.Edgar - just call 'Coastal'.
However, although I am NOT a mathematics/physics whiz, I do have empirical knowledge in the structural design side of this issue. Those who 'pretend' in this area I can easily pick out...
'YID', 'SChneibster/commON SEnse', 'Reality Check', 'Arthur adoucette' have NO experience related to this field at ALL, and (although they may be good 'Googlers') are full of BS when they start extrapolating & postulating in this field. I sincerely doubt they have ever ACTUALLY BUILT so much as a birdhouse in their lives. It comes through as clear as a bell through their sophist statments (to me).
On the other hand the poster 'gordon' (it is obvious to me) DOES HAVE empirical knowledge in this field... quite possibly even more so than I, and I for one would like to hear more of his input here related to the structural engineering of the building.
Another VERY KNOWLEDGEable person in this area is the 'deepthroat guy'... that anonymous poster who put together the Guardian/Nerdcities site soon after the official Fairy Tale was being spread. It is CLEAR to me that that anonymous author KNEW what he was talking about in structural design, and it also seems to me that he was one of the FIRST to begin exposing the Fairy Tale.
He seems to have 'disappeared' / 'gone underground'.
I Wonder what really happened to that guy? Where is he NOW? Was he MUCH too 'vocal' in the early days? A lot of his 'Guardian/Nerdcities' site (which has gone dead) is cached by Hoffman. For a while I thought it might have been Hoffman himself, but he swears up & down that the 'guardians' works were NOT his.
As for me... I am convinced the 'guardian' is dead now.
He was MUCH TOO vocal with his inside knowledge of the Towers construction (at a time when the propaganda machine was spitting out bs); and his disgust for the obvious BS {'The FEMA Fairy Tale is a JOKE'} to just have gone silent voluntarily... But
That's just my humble opinion.
Foxx,
If people want some Ph.d's here's an article by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to destroy.
Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II did not harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits.
But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.
Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.
How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example.
A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits from the city.
An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball.
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity.
The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.
As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here's the proof.
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds.
Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.
In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.
A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.
But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.
Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways.
If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case.
If the fires were hot enough to melt steel, then how come this woman wasn't fried?
How could this woman be holding on to the steel, where the impact of the plane entered the building if the steel was so hot enough to melt???
If people want some Ph.d's here's an article by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to destroy.
Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II did not harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits.
But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.
Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.
How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example.
A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits from the city.
An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball.
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity.
The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.
As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here's the proof.
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds.
Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.
In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.
A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.
But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.
Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways.
If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case.
If the fires were hot enough to melt steel, then how come this woman wasn't fried?
How could this woman be holding on to the steel, where the impact of the plane entered the building if the steel was so hot enough to melt???
QUOTE
Hey, don't go including me as having great physics knowledge. I have no Masters or PhD's in the area of Physics. It is obvious to all that Metamars is the most qualified (in this area) on THIS thread.
Thanks, but I'm very rusty. Doesn't mean I forgot everything, but I haven't been crying for Ph.D. level physicist/engineers/applied mathematicians to look into this for nothing.
Also, I have to believe Gordon knows more physics than I do, and yes, even Schneibster. The way Schneibster uses physics is what I have a problem with. Then too, his key criticism of Hoffman had no merit. (He still disagrees.)
Anyway, how can anybody claim to understand the collapse of the building without considering energy dissipated in non-elastic deformation.
Thanks to Gordon, we have a handle on this.
metamars,
Sorry about misspelling your handle name in the last post, I got it now.
Sorry about misspelling your handle name in the last post, I got it now.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 4 2006, 01:25 AM)
QUOTE
Hey, don't go including me as having great physics knowledge. I have no Masters or PhD's in the area of Physics. It is obvious to all that Metamars is the most qualified (in this area) on THIS thread.
Thanks, but I'm very rusty. Doesn't mean I forgot everything, but I haven't been crying for Ph.D. level physicist/engineers/applied mathematicians to look into this for nothing.
Also, I have to believe Gordon knows more physics than I do, and yes, even Schneibster. The way Schneibster uses physics is what I have a problem with. Then too, his key criticism of Hoffman had no merit. (He still disagrees.)
Anyway, how can anybody claim to understand the collapse of the building without considering energy dissipated in non-elastic deformation.
Thanks to Gordon, we have a handle on this.
I expect to see Gordon's face on Al Aljazeera after he shows his "Calculations" to an Arab structural engineer and they publish his findings. Until then I'll go with Schneibster, who's calculations proved the towers fell at much slower than free fall before I saw photo evidence. He also provided a neat little program which proves gravity driven free fall is possible.
That together with the logic in flying planes into a building AND blowing it up with such perfection that not even one structural engineer in the world comes out with a paper saying it couldn't happen doesn't pass the smell test... I'll lean toward normal collapse for now...
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 4 2006, 12:06 AM)
Foxx
The videos say they fell at NEAR FREE-FALL SPEEDS. It may have been a fraction of a second off, but NEAR FREE FALL SPEEDS is close enough for it to be control demolition.
It's possible on one of the videos they may have said it was VIRTUALLY FREE FALL SPEED, and there is evidence from various seismographs that show it was very, very close.
Steve... how close is close enough?
Is 'Near-Free-Fall' ... or 'Virtual Free-Fall' the same as 'FREE-FALL ???
In real common sense the implication is obvious to everyone with a high-school diploma.
For 'common folk' NEAR Free-Fall is structurally IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT Explosive Demolition of the Main Structural Support Columns.
I Dare say that persons with a grade 9 education 'KNOW That'.
However, the shills and prostitutes for the gravity-driven collapse theory will 'Call You Out' on those 'semantics'.
They will use sophistry (a plausible-sounding but erroneous postulation), to muddy the waters wrt 'Meanings of Words', and will drift off into pages upon pages of arguements regarding the meaning of ... the word 'THE' (or whichever other one they pick out to 'sophisize' about).
They are Snakes who care Nothing about Truth...
They are Only SUPPORTING their sophist high-school debate tactics, and ignore true rationale in these 'debates'.
I wish Plato was still around to decimate their own arguements, by their own words.
Still...
We struggle forward against this sophist bs, and can only hope that the majority of americans can come to realize TRUE Common Sense, and come to bring themselves to ask for a TRULY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.
PART of the obfuscation is to 'attempt' to convince 'readers' that the issue is SOOOO COMPLEX (and so far beyond their understanding) that...
"Just move along Folks... Nothing to 'SEE' here. Why waste your time reading this drivel 'conspiracy nutcase wacko' bs? Move along now, Jerry Springer & Oprah are on - do something 'productive' with your lives."
-------------------------
The TRUTH WILL BE EXPOSED
The videos say they fell at NEAR FREE-FALL SPEEDS. It may have been a fraction of a second off, but NEAR FREE FALL SPEEDS is close enough for it to be control demolition.
It's possible on one of the videos they may have said it was VIRTUALLY FREE FALL SPEED, and there is evidence from various seismographs that show it was very, very close.
Steve... how close is close enough?
Is 'Near-Free-Fall' ... or 'Virtual Free-Fall' the same as 'FREE-FALL ???
In real common sense the implication is obvious to everyone with a high-school diploma.
For 'common folk' NEAR Free-Fall is structurally IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT Explosive Demolition of the Main Structural Support Columns.
I Dare say that persons with a grade 9 education 'KNOW That'.
However, the shills and prostitutes for the gravity-driven collapse theory will 'Call You Out' on those 'semantics'.
They will use sophistry (a plausible-sounding but erroneous postulation), to muddy the waters wrt 'Meanings of Words', and will drift off into pages upon pages of arguements regarding the meaning of ... the word 'THE' (or whichever other one they pick out to 'sophisize' about).
They are Snakes who care Nothing about Truth...
They are Only SUPPORTING their sophist high-school debate tactics, and ignore true rationale in these 'debates'.
I wish Plato was still around to decimate their own arguements, by their own words.
Still...
We struggle forward against this sophist bs, and can only hope that the majority of americans can come to realize TRUE Common Sense, and come to bring themselves to ask for a TRULY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.
PART of the obfuscation is to 'attempt' to convince 'readers' that the issue is SOOOO COMPLEX (and so far beyond their understanding) that...
"Just move along Folks... Nothing to 'SEE' here. Why waste your time reading this drivel 'conspiracy nutcase wacko' bs? Move along now, Jerry Springer & Oprah are on - do something 'productive' with your lives."
-------------------------
The TRUTH WILL BE EXPOSED
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
doesn't pass the smell test
doesn't pass the smell test
What IS it exactly about 'smelly things' which fixates you...
'Schneibster'... AKA - 'cOmmON sENSe'... AKA - 'CHUCKLES' ... ???
And WHO do you actually think you are 'fooling' with your hand-puppet charade?
Forget it...
Don't bother answering... It is a Rhetorical Question, and needs no answer.
Whassa-matta?... your good buddy 'Sho-Gun' not helping you out enough at GNN? Getting trounced there also???
Foxx,
Call me a multiple personality disorder person, but in truth I have 2 distinct feelings about the liars, half-wits, dim-wits and nit-wits, who claim to be honest people with cOmMoN sEnSe.
Part of me gets frustrated with these imbeciles, who distort the truth and intentionally twist and pervert every bit of factual evidence in their pursuit of substantiating their fairy tale.
But another part of me feels pity for these poor excuses of a human being. Yes, I sometimes feel sorry for these brain dead zombie morons, walking in the dark with no grasp on reality whatsoever.
I can look at some of these guys like I would a sick person with various mental defects. I mostly feel sorry for them, I mean what kind of a life can you have when you're always living in denial, always twisting the truth, although they may have an opportunity as a defense attorney, that is if they had enough on the ball.
I also have to ask myself if some of these guys really believe their own BS, or if they're just trying to promote as much BS as possible, all the time knowing it's BS, in either case I've learned to accept them for what they are, habitual liars, who just can't tell the truth.
It makes me think about the guy who gets caught in bed, cheating on his wife, and when his wife walks in and screams at her husband for laying with that woman, the guy says "Don't believe your lying eyes, but trust me, I wasn't doing anything"
So as frustrating as they can be, try to remember, they're just mentally incompetent individuals who can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy, truth and lies, and if it's possible have pity on them whenever possible.
Call me a multiple personality disorder person, but in truth I have 2 distinct feelings about the liars, half-wits, dim-wits and nit-wits, who claim to be honest people with cOmMoN sEnSe.
Part of me gets frustrated with these imbeciles, who distort the truth and intentionally twist and pervert every bit of factual evidence in their pursuit of substantiating their fairy tale.
But another part of me feels pity for these poor excuses of a human being. Yes, I sometimes feel sorry for these brain dead zombie morons, walking in the dark with no grasp on reality whatsoever.
I can look at some of these guys like I would a sick person with various mental defects. I mostly feel sorry for them, I mean what kind of a life can you have when you're always living in denial, always twisting the truth, although they may have an opportunity as a defense attorney, that is if they had enough on the ball.
I also have to ask myself if some of these guys really believe their own BS, or if they're just trying to promote as much BS as possible, all the time knowing it's BS, in either case I've learned to accept them for what they are, habitual liars, who just can't tell the truth.
It makes me think about the guy who gets caught in bed, cheating on his wife, and when his wife walks in and screams at her husband for laying with that woman, the guy says "Don't believe your lying eyes, but trust me, I wasn't doing anything"
So as frustrating as they can be, try to remember, they're just mentally incompetent individuals who can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy, truth and lies, and if it's possible have pity on them whenever possible.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 4 2006, 01:23 AM)
Foxx,
If people want some Ph.d's here's an article by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Jerry Russell runs one of the 9-11 sites.
He is a supporter of the idea that planes didn't fly into the WTC towers or the Pentagon
His Ph.D. is in Electrical Engineering.
His specialty is neural nets
Nothing to do with physics or structures.
Having a Ph.D. is important, if its relevant.
His site: http://www.911-strike.com/about.htm
Arthur
If people want some Ph.d's here's an article by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Jerry Russell runs one of the 9-11 sites.
He is a supporter of the idea that planes didn't fly into the WTC towers or the Pentagon
His Ph.D. is in Electrical Engineering.
His specialty is neural nets
Nothing to do with physics or structures.
Having a Ph.D. is important, if its relevant.
His site: http://www.911-strike.com/about.htm
Arthur
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 4 2006, 01:23 AM)
Foxx,
If people want some Ph.d's here's an article by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
Time for me to attack the messenger again, huh Foxx?
No need. Jerry the Ph.D. dies a pretty good job of it himself......
At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer. - Jerry Russell
Who would ever mistake me for "James Bond"?
By Jerry Russell
On March 31, 2002 (just in time for April Fool's Day) I posted an article to the Usenet entitled "Proof of controlled demolition at the WTC". In fact I indulged in some rather egregious cross-posting, in order to attract attention to my theory. I was sincerely convinced at the time that my arguments were correct, but as it turned out, the April Fool's joke was on me.
The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it. This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct.
My article also pointed out that it is historically unprecedented for airplane strikes and/or fires to destroy large steel-frame structures. My opinion is that this should be good reason to be suspicious about the official story (and I'm still suspicious at least to some extent), but many readers pointed out that there is always a first time for everything. They note that in many ways, the events of 9-11 were indeed historically unprecedented, so it was hardly fair of me to use precedent as if it were substantial evidence.
At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer.
But after all, it was only a Usenet post. I bravely waded through all the flames and insults in the many responses, and found that there was a residual level of useful feedback in the discussion. As soon as I understood my mistake, I posted a retraction.
However, some people apparently liked my April Fool's article, exactly as it first appeared. It has developed a life of its own. It has been posted to Mark Elsis' Attack On America site. It appeared on Rense.com one day, but they were gracious enough to take it down at my request. It's gone out in private mailing lists, and been re-posted to the Usenet by others. I get a more or less continuous stream of e-mail about it. Every time I hear from someone, I explain and apologize for my mistakes in the article.
Now the article has appeared again, but I am no longer given credit (or blame) as the author of the piece. In its latest incarnation in the Delphi Associates Newsletter (vol. 4, issue #81), it was written by a mole from inside the MI6 British intelligence service, writing under the alias of "James Bond". Under its new authorship, the article has been posted again to the Usenet.
A reader of my web page alerted me to the situation, and he was also kind enough to send me a scan of the newsletter article, which appears here: page 1, page 2, page 3.
But the article as it is published in the Delphi Newsletter is not exactly in its original form. There are a few additions -- for example, a mystical reference to Nostradamus, and an approving discussion of the French "Hunt the Boeing" web page. I suppose I did a good enough job of discrediting myself and my ideas, but "James Bond" has been able to add to the general level of hilarity by bringing in these other questionable threads.
I've written to Sean David Morton of Delphi Associates to ask him how this could have happened and how he mistook my article for something by "James Bond". So far, I haven't heard from him...
Posted 5/21/2002
Update 6/9/2002: Mr. Morton did contact me, and we agreed that he would publish a follow-up letter from me, explaining the technical errors in the "James Bond" article.
http://www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm
If people want some Ph.d's here's an article by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
Time for me to attack the messenger again, huh Foxx?
No need. Jerry the Ph.D. dies a pretty good job of it himself......
At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer. - Jerry Russell
Who would ever mistake me for "James Bond"?
By Jerry Russell
On March 31, 2002 (just in time for April Fool's Day) I posted an article to the Usenet entitled "Proof of controlled demolition at the WTC". In fact I indulged in some rather egregious cross-posting, in order to attract attention to my theory. I was sincerely convinced at the time that my arguments were correct, but as it turned out, the April Fool's joke was on me.
The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it. This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct.
My article also pointed out that it is historically unprecedented for airplane strikes and/or fires to destroy large steel-frame structures. My opinion is that this should be good reason to be suspicious about the official story (and I'm still suspicious at least to some extent), but many readers pointed out that there is always a first time for everything. They note that in many ways, the events of 9-11 were indeed historically unprecedented, so it was hardly fair of me to use precedent as if it were substantial evidence.
At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer.
But after all, it was only a Usenet post. I bravely waded through all the flames and insults in the many responses, and found that there was a residual level of useful feedback in the discussion. As soon as I understood my mistake, I posted a retraction.
However, some people apparently liked my April Fool's article, exactly as it first appeared. It has developed a life of its own. It has been posted to Mark Elsis' Attack On America site. It appeared on Rense.com one day, but they were gracious enough to take it down at my request. It's gone out in private mailing lists, and been re-posted to the Usenet by others. I get a more or less continuous stream of e-mail about it. Every time I hear from someone, I explain and apologize for my mistakes in the article.
Now the article has appeared again, but I am no longer given credit (or blame) as the author of the piece. In its latest incarnation in the Delphi Associates Newsletter (vol. 4, issue #81), it was written by a mole from inside the MI6 British intelligence service, writing under the alias of "James Bond". Under its new authorship, the article has been posted again to the Usenet.
A reader of my web page alerted me to the situation, and he was also kind enough to send me a scan of the newsletter article, which appears here: page 1, page 2, page 3.
But the article as it is published in the Delphi Newsletter is not exactly in its original form. There are a few additions -- for example, a mystical reference to Nostradamus, and an approving discussion of the French "Hunt the Boeing" web page. I suppose I did a good enough job of discrediting myself and my ideas, but "James Bond" has been able to add to the general level of hilarity by bringing in these other questionable threads.
I've written to Sean David Morton of Delphi Associates to ask him how this could have happened and how he mistook my article for something by "James Bond". So far, I haven't heard from him...
Posted 5/21/2002
Update 6/9/2002: Mr. Morton did contact me, and we agreed that he would publish a follow-up letter from me, explaining the technical errors in the "James Bond" article.
http://www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Until then I'll go with Schneibster, who's calculations proved the towers fell at much slower than free fall before I saw photo evidence.
Until then I'll go with Schneibster, who's calculations proved the towers fell at much slower than free fall before I saw photo evidence.
Well, Schneibster... your calculations did NOT 'Prove' the towers fell ...
"at much slower than free fall"
As I said to Steve1957 'how much'?
You are great at explaining that the towers fell NOT AT FREE-Fall Speeds.
(Can we now ALL finally agree after 175 pages that the towers DID NOT fall at 'Free-Fall speeds'???)
They actually 'disintegrated' to the ground 'slower' than if you dropped a brick from the same height as the top of the towers? Any 'Problems/Disagreements' There ???
The question still remains (as I presented way back when)...
How MUCH 'SLOWER' SHOULD they have fallen (according to the gravity-driven collapse theory), Schniebster?
Seems to me that you have always tried to avoid doing those calculations.
Get on with proving your point. How MUCH SLOWER ???
We All (Already) Know that controlled demolitions can bring buildings down 'ALMOST AS FAST AS FREE-FALL'....
shall we agree upon NEAR 'free-fall' through THIN AIR ???
A 'gravity-driven' collapse MUST PROGRESS SLOWER than 'free-fall' OR controlled-demolitions. This (I Claim as FACT) due to the physics phenomena known as RESISTANCE. IF you disagree with what I Claim as FACT here, then please QUOTE this statement and show HOW a gravity-driven 'collapse' can proceed AS FAST as a Controlled Demolition (which is purposely designed to take out ALL major structural support systems throughout the entire building in a controlled fashion) ???
YID accuses me of being an 'arrogant' SOB? OK, FINE. I AM 'arrogant' in the face of LIES.
SHOW ME a valid structural engineering explaination of HOW this would be possible.
Bearing in mind that your 'possible' explaination can also be 'plausible' in the face of ALL other evidence collected to date.
Much has been said about 'sounds' of explosions, and sights of explosions (with great sophistry about how such things are NOT connected and only 'appear' to represent OTHER plausible explanations.
Really !!!???
Let me try to interject some REAL Common Sense here...
IF it LOOKS like a DUCK, and it SOUNDS like a DUCK, and it ACTS like a DUCK, Common Sense tells us... IT'S MOST LIKELY A DUCK !!!
The gravity-driven collapse supporters' wish to tell us... That is 'Unreasonable'...
It ONLY LOOKED like, SOUNDED like, And ACTED like a 'Duck'... but it Wasn't REALLY ...'A Duck' !!!
My apologies... I MUST be an IDIOT !!!
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 4 2006, 03:17 AM)
My apologies... I MUST be an IDIOT !!!
Jerry Russell PhD seems to think so.
"The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse." - Jerry Russell
Let me guess.....
....his life has been threatened by the Illuminati?
Right?
....his life has been threatened by the Illuminati?
Right?
Foxx,
Remember, try to have pity on these people, because they're not playing with a full deck. I know, I know, I get tricked myself all too often into thinking there's some signs of intelligence in there, but at least they're consistant and never let me down in my original assumption that these guys are in some serious trouble with their ability to tell the truth.
As I said before, the truth is their biggest enemy, and they have to do anything possible to get rid of it, and that's why they'll attack anything and anyone for the stupidist reasons they can come up with.
Like Jerry Russel PhD. They find some scam who writes up a bunch of junk, then copies and pastes, or writes his name on the bottom and then they say, "See that proves it, explosives were not used"
The bottom line is that their whole world would collapse, just like the towers if the truth were allowed to enter into their minds, so they gotta do everything they can to wipe it out.
It's a very sad and pitiful situation they're in. I feel sorry for them.
Remember, try to have pity on these people, because they're not playing with a full deck. I know, I know, I get tricked myself all too often into thinking there's some signs of intelligence in there, but at least they're consistant and never let me down in my original assumption that these guys are in some serious trouble with their ability to tell the truth.
As I said before, the truth is their biggest enemy, and they have to do anything possible to get rid of it, and that's why they'll attack anything and anyone for the stupidist reasons they can come up with.
Like Jerry Russel PhD. They find some scam who writes up a bunch of junk, then copies and pastes, or writes his name on the bottom and then they say, "See that proves it, explosives were not used"
The bottom line is that their whole world would collapse, just like the towers if the truth were allowed to enter into their minds, so they gotta do everything they can to wipe it out.
It's a very sad and pitiful situation they're in. I feel sorry for them.
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 4 2006, 03:35 AM)
Let me guess.....
....his life has been threatened by the Illuminati?
Right?
QUACK...
Did I mention Jerry Russell in this thread?
Now, C'mon... let's hear the dirt on Steven Jones?
He's a 'seventh day adventist'?
He's a mormon?
Charles T. Russel was a relative?
What?
Tell us honestly... was Hoover's dress made out of human hide?
Edit to Add - Please notice that our 'buddy' (fellow investigator - 'The Quack') does not address any scientific issues... but concentrates (as usual) on 'Attack the Messenger' tactics).
Quack... Play your crap all you like with the Russell/Hoffman controversy (leaving out significant portions, of course... which can take up numerous obfuscating pages of deceit on your behalf).
Odd, (Ifind it), that you and YID track me on the web.
Is it just a 'personal attraction' you find in me... or something more?
Why track down an 'idiot' unless that 'idiot' represents some kind of 'threat' (to whomever you support)?
Idiot ... F'off back to Virginia.
....his life has been threatened by the Illuminati?
Right?
QUACK...
Did I mention Jerry Russell in this thread?
Now, C'mon... let's hear the dirt on Steven Jones?
He's a 'seventh day adventist'?
He's a mormon?
Charles T. Russel was a relative?
What?
Tell us honestly... was Hoover's dress made out of human hide?
Edit to Add - Please notice that our 'buddy' (fellow investigator - 'The Quack') does not address any scientific issues... but concentrates (as usual) on 'Attack the Messenger' tactics).
Quack... Play your crap all you like with the Russell/Hoffman controversy (leaving out significant portions, of course... which can take up numerous obfuscating pages of deceit on your behalf).
Odd, (Ifind it), that you and YID track me on the web.
Is it just a 'personal attraction' you find in me... or something more?
Why track down an 'idiot' unless that 'idiot' represents some kind of 'threat' (to whomever you support)?
Idiot ... F'off back to Virginia.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 4 2006, 03:36 AM)
Like Jerry Russel PhD. They find some scam who writes up a bunch of junk, then copies and pastes, or writes his name on the bottom and then they say, "See that proves it, explosives were not used"
True believer.....
.....must be one one Rev. Schuller's flock.
Ask Russell yourself, Sherlock.
jerry@911-strike.com
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 4 2006, 03:45 AM)
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 4 2006, 03:35 AM)
Let me guess.....
....his life has been threatened by the Illuminati?
Right?
QUACK...
Did I mention Jerry Russell in this thread?
Now, C'mon... let's hear the dirt on Steven Jones?
He's a 'seventh day adventist'?
He's a mormon?
Charles T. Russel was a relative?
What?
Tell us honestly... was Hoover's dress made out of human hide?
Miss me?
Edit to Add - Please notice that our 'buddy' (fellow investigator - 'The Quack') does not address any scientific issues... but concentrates (as usual) on 'Attack the Messenger' tactics).
Quack... Play your crap all you like with the Russell/Hoffman controversy (leaving out significant portions, of course... which can take up numerous obfuscating pages of deceit on your behalf).
Odd, (Ifind it), that you and YID track me on the web.
Is it just a 'personal attraction' you find in me... or something more?
Why track down an 'idiot' unless that 'idiot' represents some kind of 'threat' (to whomever you support)?
Idiot ... F'off back to Virginia.
You invited us and provided the URL.
Remember?
I'll leave you with the immortal words of Jerry Russell PhD....
"The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse." - Jerry Russell
....his life has been threatened by the Illuminati?
Right?
QUACK...
Did I mention Jerry Russell in this thread?
Now, C'mon... let's hear the dirt on Steven Jones?
He's a 'seventh day adventist'?
He's a mormon?
Charles T. Russel was a relative?
What?
Tell us honestly... was Hoover's dress made out of human hide?
Miss me?
Man, this is sad, It's like I'm watching Ethiopian children dig in the dirt for left over grains of uncooked rice. There's nothing there. They're dead and don't know it.
Hey!
What happeneed to my log in cookie??
Ooops!
Firefox.
What happeneed to my log in cookie??
Ooops!
Firefox.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 4 2006, 03:45 AM)
Edit to Add - Please notice that our 'buddy' (fellow investigator - 'The Quack') does not address any scientific issues... but concentrates (as usual) on 'Attack the Messenger' tactics).
Quack... Play your crap all you like with the Russell/Hoffman controversy (leaving out significant portions, of course... which can take up numerous obfuscating pages of deceit on your behalf).
Odd, (Ifind it), that you and YID track me on the web.
Is it just a 'personal attraction' you find in me... or something more?
Why track down an 'idiot' unless that 'idiot' represents some kind of 'threat' (to whomever you support)?
Idiot ... F'off back to Virginia.
You invited us and provided the URL.
Remember?
I'll leave you with the immortal words of Jerry Russell PhD....
"The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse." - Jerry Russell
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 4 2006, 03:51 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 4 2006, 03:45 AM)
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 4 2006, 03:35 AM)
Let me guess.....
....his life has been threatened by the Illuminati?
Right?
QUACK...
Did I mention Jerry Russell in this thread?
Now, C'mon... let's hear the dirt on Steven Jones?
He's a 'seventh day adventist'?
He's a mormon?
Charles T. Russel was a relative?
What?
Tell us honestly... was Hoover's dress made out of human hide?
Miss me?
No Quack, to be honest... I didn't 'miss' you and 'Louise' (aka YID)... at all.
But I guess that's one of them Amazing Suspensions of Physics that them danged muslims started on Sept 11 2001 when they suspended the laws of physics!
You send Thelma & Louise off a cliff (expecting that's the Last you'll ever hear from them jokers).... and then 'they' turn up alive in other parts of 'the world' What is the world coming to?
Heh
We're sure havin' a helluva Good-Time now, Ehhhh ???
Wow, Foxx posts on Pravda that he is posting on physorg. I ignore him. Foxx then claims that an anon poster is me so i finally decide to check out this thread and actually register.
Now, after basically hounding me to post here he accuses me of stalking him.
Foxx, you must have aced the Paranoia 101 class at UBC.
Wow, Foxx posts on Pravda that he is posting on physorg. I ignore him. Foxx then claims that an anon poster is me so i finally decide to check out this thread and actually register.
Now, after basically hounding me to post here he accuses me of stalking him.
Foxx, you must have aced the Paranoia 101 class at UBC.
I find the Physics site much more rewarding. Much less derogatory BS there, and the low-life trolls don't last long before they are exposed and run out.
As always there are disagreements regarding scientific questions, but those who stay are much more polite towards differing viewpoints and beliefs.
Anyway, keep up the good work Beat (and the rest of you who have open eyes). The 9/11 forum is now set up here, so I'll drop back to input new developments and news, and I suggest the rest of you also do the same, and try to avoid interaction with the trolls. I'll see you all down the road, maybe 'here', now and then; or at other forums. or at the final accounting. Keep the 'Libraries of Information' here alive with updates.
Edit to add - Its pretty easy to find the Physics forum... simply google...
'Shill outs himself on mainstream physics forum'.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q...le+Search&meta=
Or here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=0
I guess you've noticed that the Yid makes excuses to shy away from there... even though he 'tested the waters' with his post under 'new guy'
Wow, Foxx posts on Pravda that he is posting on physorg. I ignore him. Foxx then claims that an anon poster is me so i finally decide to check out this thread and actually register.
Now, after basically hounding me to post here he accuses me of stalking him.
Foxx, you must have aced the Paranoia 101 class at UBC.
BWAhahahhahahahahah !!!!
Good one, Yidster !
UBC is on the mainland.
Try UVic (Psychotropic drugs biological development studies)!
Hey, might as well play the part you are accused of? (shrugs shoulders)
Hahahahahaha !!!!!
Please try to keep up
Steve1957... any comment on this sophistry?
I'm sure you meant to say 'obfuscated sophistry'.
Just trying to help.
Your pal,
Coastal
Wow, Foxx posts on Pravda that he is posting on physorg. I ignore him. Foxx then claims that an anon poster is me so i finally decide to check out this thread and actually register.
Now, after basically hounding me to post here he accuses me of stalking him.
Foxx, you must have aced the Paranoia 101 class at UBC.
BWAhahahhahahahahah !!!!
Good one, Yidster !
UBC is on the mainland.
Try UVic (Psychotropic drugs biological development studies)!
Hey, might as well play the part you are accused of? (shrugs shoulders)
Hahahahahaha !!!!!
Please try to keep up
Ok, I forgot you were on the island.
Gee, and you accuse me of some type of obsession with you. If I gave a rat's a$$ I would try to remember the details of your life but that rat is safe.
....his life has been threatened by the Illuminati?
Right?
QUACK...
Did I mention Jerry Russell in this thread?
Now, C'mon... let's hear the dirt on Steven Jones?
He's a 'seventh day adventist'?
He's a mormon?
Charles T. Russel was a relative?
What?
Tell us honestly... was Hoover's dress made out of human hide?
Miss me?
No Quack, to be honest... I didn't 'miss' you and 'Louise' (aka YID)... at all.
But I guess that's one of them Amazing Suspensions of Physics that them danged muslims started on Sept 11 2001 when they suspended the laws of physics!
You send Thelma & Louise off a cliff (expecting that's the Last you'll ever hear from them jokers).... and then 'they' turn up alive in other parts of 'the world'
What is the world coming to?Heh
We're sure havin' a helluva Good-Time now, Ehhhh ???
physorg?????this place sounds more like a religious thread!!!are only religious morons like steve1957 and Foxx and their brothers allowed to post here???or can just anyone come in an have fun potting them poor sitting ducks????quackquackquackquack!!!
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 4 2006, 04:25 AM)
physorg?????this place sounds more like a religious thread!!!are only religious morons like steve1957 and Foxx and their brothers allowed to post here???or can just anyone come in an have fun potting them poor sitting ducks????quackquackquackquack!!!
Typical post from the Quack when he can't find any logic.
Get a life, sunshine:D
Typical post from the Quack when he can't find any logic.
Get a life, sunshine:D
I find it odd that Foxx does not challenge steve on this:
After all, steve, who has no qualifications whatsoever in the feild of physics has just said that the collapse happened at free fall and that kerosene is said to have melted steel.
Two erroneous statements. Now I have to read two more pages of this thread but I have a feeling that maybe metamars would correct steve but that Foxxy will let this slide.
Ok 1350 feet
1350=0.5(32)(t^2)
t=sqrt[(1350)(2)/32]
t= 9.1855 seconds
Actual total time of collapse is put at between 10 and 16 seconds.
Even IF the time of total collapse is just 10 seconds that still represents a delay of 8.8% from free fall. If it is 12 seconds it is a delay of 30.6% from free fall. If it is 15 seconds it is 63.3% slower than free fall.
The CT seems always to pick the absolute fastest time of collapse of any estimates and then shout, "free fall, free fall"(or the ambiguous "near free fall, near free fall")
QUOTE
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds.
Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.
Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.
After all, steve, who has no qualifications whatsoever in the feild of physics has just said that the collapse happened at free fall and that kerosene is said to have melted steel.
Two erroneous statements. Now I have to read two more pages of this thread but I have a feeling that maybe metamars would correct steve but that Foxxy will let this slide.
Ok 1350 feet
1350=0.5(32)(t^2)
t=sqrt[(1350)(2)/32]
t= 9.1855 seconds
Actual total time of collapse is put at between 10 and 16 seconds.
Even IF the time of total collapse is just 10 seconds that still represents a delay of 8.8% from free fall. If it is 12 seconds it is a delay of 30.6% from free fall. If it is 15 seconds it is 63.3% slower than free fall.
The CT seems always to pick the absolute fastest time of collapse of any estimates and then shout, "free fall, free fall"(or the ambiguous "near free fall, near free fall")
hey!!!!the sitting ducks talk back here!!!far out physorg! How do I register without my mom knowin I'm using her comp? pot you later mrfoxxduck. checkitout!! a sitting duck called me a quack! funnyunreal!!! waaaaquackquackquackquack!!!
QUOTE
Odd, (Ifind it), that you and YID track me on the web.
Wow, Foxx posts on Pravda that he is posting on physorg. I ignore him. Foxx then claims that an anon poster is me so i finally decide to check out this thread and actually register.
Now, after basically hounding me to post here he accuses me of stalking him.
Foxx, you must have aced the Paranoia 101 class at UBC.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Odd, (Ifind it), that you and YID track me on the web. |
Wow, Foxx posts on Pravda that he is posting on physorg. I ignore him. Foxx then claims that an anon poster is me so i finally decide to check out this thread and actually register.
Now, after basically hounding me to post here he accuses me of stalking him.
Foxx, you must have aced the Paranoia 101 class at UBC.
I find the Physics site much more rewarding. Much less derogatory BS there, and the low-life trolls don't last long before they are exposed and run out.
As always there are disagreements regarding scientific questions, but those who stay are much more polite towards differing viewpoints and beliefs.
Anyway, keep up the good work Beat (and the rest of you who have open eyes). The 9/11 forum is now set up here, so I'll drop back to input new developments and news, and I suggest the rest of you also do the same, and try to avoid interaction with the trolls. I'll see you all down the road, maybe 'here', now and then; or at other forums. or at the final accounting. Keep the 'Libraries of Information' here alive with updates.
Edit to add - Its pretty easy to find the Physics forum... simply google...
'Shill outs himself on mainstream physics forum'.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q...le+Search&meta=
Or here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=0
I guess you've noticed that the Yid makes excuses to shy away from there... even though he 'tested the waters' with his post under 'new guy'
.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by yesitdid
Boyle states he was on the north, then the east side of WTC7 and saw no damage but then exclaims at the damage to the south side. You characterize this as his meaning the SW corner? Foxx, if he came around the building from the east side then the SW corner was the furthest from his view and would have been partially obstructed by the pedestrian overpass(IIRC). At any rate your assumption that he was speaking about the SW corner is baseless. You then complain that you have read no firefighter testimony of massive damage to the south side!!! Boyle IS saying there was massive damage to the south side and you are changing his testimony strictly to conform to YOUR conspiracy theory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answered at PhysOrg, YID
QUOTE
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by yesitdid
Boyle states he was on the north, then the east side of WTC7 and saw no damage but then exclaims at the damage to the south side. You characterize this as his meaning the SW corner? Foxx, if he came around the building from the east side then the SW corner was the furthest from his view and would have been partially obstructed by the pedestrian overpass(IIRC). At any rate your assumption that he was speaking about the SW corner is baseless. You then complain that you have read no firefighter testimony of massive damage to the south side!!! Boyle IS saying there was massive damage to the south side and you are changing his testimony strictly to conform to YOUR conspiracy theory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answered at PhysOrg, YID
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 4 2006, 04:33 AM)
I find it odd that Foxx does not challenge steve on this:
After all, steve, who has no qualifications whatsoever in the feild of physics has just said that the collapse happened at free fall and that kerosene is said to have melted steel.
Two erroneous statements. Now I have to read two more pages of this thread but I have a feeling that maybe metamars would correct steve but that Foxxy will let this slide.
Ok 1350 feet
1350=0.5(32)(t^2)
t=sqrt[(1350)(2)/32]
t= 9.1855 seconds
Actual total time of collapse is put at between 10 and 16 seconds.
Even IF the time of total collapse is just 10 seconds that still represents a delay of 8.8% from free fall. If it is 12 seconds it is a delay of 30.6% from free fall. If it is 15 seconds it is 63.3% slower than free fall.
The CT seems always to pick the absolute fastest time of collapse of any estimates and then shout, "free fall, free fall"(or the ambiguous "near free fall, near free fall")
Heh...
Steve1957... any comment on this sophistry?
QUOTE
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds.
Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.
Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.
After all, steve, who has no qualifications whatsoever in the feild of physics has just said that the collapse happened at free fall and that kerosene is said to have melted steel.
Two erroneous statements. Now I have to read two more pages of this thread but I have a feeling that maybe metamars would correct steve but that Foxxy will let this slide.
Ok 1350 feet
1350=0.5(32)(t^2)
t=sqrt[(1350)(2)/32]
t= 9.1855 seconds
Actual total time of collapse is put at between 10 and 16 seconds.
Even IF the time of total collapse is just 10 seconds that still represents a delay of 8.8% from free fall. If it is 12 seconds it is a delay of 30.6% from free fall. If it is 15 seconds it is 63.3% slower than free fall.
The CT seems always to pick the absolute fastest time of collapse of any estimates and then shout, "free fall, free fall"(or the ambiguous "near free fall, near free fall")
Heh...
Steve1957... any comment on this sophistry?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 4 2006, 04:45 AM)
QUOTE
Odd, (Ifind it), that you and YID track me on the web.
Wow, Foxx posts on Pravda that he is posting on physorg. I ignore him. Foxx then claims that an anon poster is me so i finally decide to check out this thread and actually register.
Now, after basically hounding me to post here he accuses me of stalking him.
Foxx, you must have aced the Paranoia 101 class at UBC.
BWAhahahhahahahahah !!!!
Good one, Yidster !
UBC is on the mainland.
Try UVic
(Psychotropic drugs biological development studies)! Hey, might as well play the part you are accused of? (shrugs shoulders)
Hahahahahaha !!!!!
Please try to keep up
How about that , I was correct. Foxx will not correct steve.
Foxx, steve is married, steve is a good christian and takes his marriage vows seriously.
Foxx, steve is married, steve is a good christian and takes his marriage vows seriously.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 4 2006, 04:46 AM)
Steve1957... any comment on this sophistry?
I'm sure you meant to say 'obfuscated sophistry'.
Just trying to help.
Your pal,
Coastal
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 4 2006, 04:58 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 4 2006, 04:45 AM)
QUOTE
Odd, (Ifind it), that you and YID track me on the web.
Wow, Foxx posts on Pravda that he is posting on physorg. I ignore him. Foxx then claims that an anon poster is me so i finally decide to check out this thread and actually register.
Now, after basically hounding me to post here he accuses me of stalking him.
Foxx, you must have aced the Paranoia 101 class at UBC.
BWAhahahhahahahahah !!!!
Good one, Yidster !
UBC is on the mainland.
Try UVic
(Psychotropic drugs biological development studies)! Hey, might as well play the part you are accused of? (shrugs shoulders)
Hahahahahaha !!!!!
Please try to keep up
Ok, I forgot you were on the island.
Gee, and you accuse me of some type of obsession with you. If I gave a rat's a$$ I would try to remember the details of your life but that rat is safe.
Actually one of steve-o's videos says that the towers fell in 8.4 seconds. OK , so it says that the bottom portion of the upper section hit in 8.4 seconds.
I cannot see anything to back up the contention though and it does mean that the upper section would have to be largely intact when it hit the ground in order for seismic activity to have recorded it.
In fact this is a purely sensationalistic claim with no actual basis and is designed only to lead the viewer with a lie or unsubstantiated claim.
Foxx, have you watched any of steve-o's videos?
O, and I further edited one of my above posts concerning my supposed stalking of po' lil' you.
I cannot see anything to back up the contention though and it does mean that the upper section would have to be largely intact when it hit the ground in order for seismic activity to have recorded it.
In fact this is a purely sensationalistic claim with no actual basis and is designed only to lead the viewer with a lie or unsubstantiated claim.
Foxx, have you watched any of steve-o's videos?
O, and I further edited one of my above posts concerning my supposed stalking of po' lil' you.
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.