QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 4 2006, 05:03 AM)
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.
Well, enough fun for tonight ... I realize that some here are on 24/7 duty...
but that's not me
Yid...
Later...
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 4 2006, 05:11 AM)
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.
.
Hi yesitdid!
No time to stop!...just an FYI: There is actually a "Steveo" posting in other forums here that I have great respect for as a scientist and thinker, so I would appreciate if you didn't use that "O" suffix when referring to any OTHER "steve"....I for one would not want to have the real Steveo's own standing 'confused' in any way....and if HE were aware of your posting, I'm sure he would have felt the same. Thanks for your co-operation, yesitdid! Ciao all.
RC.
.
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.
.
Hi yesitdid!
No time to stop!...just an FYI: There is actually a "Steveo" posting in other forums here that I have great respect for as a scientist and thinker, so I would appreciate if you didn't use that "O" suffix when referring to any OTHER "steve"....I for one would not want to have the real Steveo's own standing 'confused' in any way....and if HE were aware of your posting, I'm sure he would have felt the same. Thanks for your co-operation, yesitdid! Ciao all.
RC.
.
Fox,
You see what happens when a little truth gets thrown at the nit-wits. It's like rattling a monkeys cage.
Now listen you little nit-wit, mentally deprived monkeys, it doesn't matter what you think of me personally, or Jerry Russel, or anyone else. The towers came down with explosives.
If it was a little slower than free-fall speed, but since it was close enough, some people say free-fall speed, so what. Does it really make a difference?
The issue is not about how many times I've read the bible, or what religious upbringing professor Jones, the issue is TRUTH, facts and logic, that's the thing that has you guys all in an uproar, and that's about as obvious as the phony magician in a cave fairy tale.
I know, I know, I fell for it again, I started conversing with you guys as if you had some intelligence. Sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with.
You see what happens when a little truth gets thrown at the nit-wits. It's like rattling a monkeys cage.
Now listen you little nit-wit, mentally deprived monkeys, it doesn't matter what you think of me personally, or Jerry Russel, or anyone else. The towers came down with explosives.
If it was a little slower than free-fall speed, but since it was close enough, some people say free-fall speed, so what. Does it really make a difference?
The issue is not about how many times I've read the bible, or what religious upbringing professor Jones, the issue is TRUTH, facts and logic, that's the thing that has you guys all in an uproar, and that's about as obvious as the phony magician in a cave fairy tale.
I know, I know, I fell for it again, I started conversing with you guys as if you had some intelligence. Sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with.
QUOTE
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
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
This is just Bazant Zhou, a paper that I sincerely doubt even it's authors believe explains anything. IMO, I've indirectly shown how extraordinarily incomplete their "analysis" is, since it's implications are extraodinarily unphysical. Do they seriously believe the WTC steel columns fracture after a compression of a few millimeters?
Of course, I'd love for them to state what they believe is the significance of their paper in their own words.
Anybody have to time to confront them with the implications of their "analysis"?
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 4 2006, 05:49 AM)
QUOTE
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
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
This is just Bazant Zhou, a paper that I sincerely doubt even it's authors believe explains anything. IMO, I've indirectly shown how extraordinarily incomplete their "analysis" is, since it's implications are extraodinarily unphysical. Do they seriously believe the WTC steel columns fracture after a compression of a few millimeters?
Of course, I'd love for them to state what they believe is the significance of their paper in their own words.
Anybody have to time to confront them with the implications of their "analysis"?
I, personally have a high respect for Zdenek Bazant...
You know, metamars... as much as I agree with with you on the 'Bizarro-Zoo theory', I personally do NOT believe that Zdenek P. Bazant was 'participatory' in the development of the Fairy Tale.
I think he was USED.
His initial statements have been 'USED' by the official Fairy-Tale- Tellers as 'evidence' to support THEIR position.
However, Zdenek Bazant (I am quite sure) would NOT support (privately) today his own theory (IF he was AWARE of ALL that we know).
It MAY BE ONLY co-incidental that no follow-ups on his theory have been propagandized by 'Official' sources since 2002. You might ask yourself... "Why NOT???"
FEMA & NIST lean heavily on the initial postulation of Bazant-Zhou, Yet... I don't see him 'signing-up' as approving the 'final draft'.
You are best suited on THIS forum to approach Bazant personally.
I suggest you might try to contact him wrt your/our concerns. (I suspect he may want to waffle and avoid issues -This is a 'touchy issue'-
But hey, in his particular field he is like a current-day Einstein). I have read some of his writings... and he is definately not an idiot. (Unlike Eagar- the Idiot )
However.... remember that (according to his own 'ill-informed versions' of events which he saw on MSM) HE, Himself said that his 'theory' would ONLY BE Plausible IF the entire upper portion REMAINED INTACT (like a solid body - a 'pile-driving' piston...)
and we KNOW that did NOT happen.
Zdenek Bazant is advanced in years, and I don't know whether he would even answer an e-mail on the WTC Towers controversy.
Maybe, he would not want to become 'involved' with such controversies at this stage in his life... but... it might be worth a shot?
I would personally approach him myself, but wouldn't have the appropriate questions to ask, nor the appropriate expertise to even ask questions of this guy.
I would hope that 'asking questions' would NOT place Zdenek in any compromising situations.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html
The towers had quite extensive sprinkler systems.
They had massive defenses against fire.
This goes without saying.
It's interesting how some people avoid these fundamental facts
but I guess they don´t consider a water soaked environment
very supportive to their nonsensical fantasies.
After the fuel had burned up after circa 15 minutes (even FEMA
was forced to admit it had) the fire had little to work on. Obviously
this isn't a "fire friendly" environment. So it was a smoldering cool
fire producing very dark and black smoke typical.
Steel conducts heat. Each tower contained something like 200 thousand
tons of it. The notion that heat could somehow magically avoid being
conducted away from the parts being heated and stubbornly cling to
a fraction of the steel structure is total nonsense and absolutely
physically impossible.
Explosives brought down the towers. It's the only rational explanation.
Since the official conspiracy theory holds no water whatsover and isn't
even physically possible it must be rejected as useless. Clearly.
They had massive defenses against fire.
This goes without saying.
It's interesting how some people avoid these fundamental facts
but I guess they don´t consider a water soaked environment
very supportive to their nonsensical fantasies.
After the fuel had burned up after circa 15 minutes (even FEMA
was forced to admit it had) the fire had little to work on. Obviously
this isn't a "fire friendly" environment. So it was a smoldering cool
fire producing very dark and black smoke typical.
Steel conducts heat. Each tower contained something like 200 thousand
tons of it. The notion that heat could somehow magically avoid being
conducted away from the parts being heated and stubbornly cling to
a fraction of the steel structure is total nonsense and absolutely
physically impossible.
Explosives brought down the towers. It's the only rational explanation.
Since the official conspiracy theory holds no water whatsover and isn't
even physically possible it must be rejected as useless. Clearly.
QUOTE
galdur
After the fuel had burned up after circa 15 minutes (even FEMA
was forced to admit it had) the fire had little to work on. Obviously
this isn't a "fire friendly" environment. So it was a smoldering cool
fire producing very dark and black smoke typical.
After the fuel had burned up after circa 15 minutes (even FEMA
was forced to admit it had) the fire had little to work on. Obviously
this isn't a "fire friendly" environment. So it was a smoldering cool
fire producing very dark and black smoke typical.
Yes and this picture is more proof that the fire had cooled down, so much that the woman was leaning on the metal...
No more fire, other than smoke
The fireman said they had the fire under control, it was almost out.
So how could a fire that only lasted 1 hour completely disintegrate all the floors
in a building with this much thick steel
When the madrid fire was much more intense and burned 19 hours
And that steel structure didn't collapse
How come your stove grids are exposed to heat for years and years
I guess that Bin Laden must have been a magician in order to change the laws of physics and gravity that day, unless of course explosives were really used
But if explosives were really used then that would mean little bush isn't a very honest man
Said it before, say it again; I find it absolutely and massively
amazing that people are found on a science message board who
have no understanding at all of the concept of energy sinks !!!
Thanks Steve for the pics. Great for my file.
amazing that people are found on a science message board who
have no understanding at all of the concept of energy sinks !!!
Thanks Steve for the pics. Great for my file.
"""Scientific Reasoning
Scientific reasoning characterizes a systematic pattern of thought involving four stages or steps, namely: puzzlement, speculation, adaptation, and explanation.4 Something occurs that does not fit comfortably into our background knowledge and expectations and thus becomes a source of puzzlement. Alternative theories that might possibly explain that occurrence are advanced for consideration. The available relevant evidence is brought to bear upon those hypotheses and their measures of evidential support are ascertained, where additional evidence may be obtained on the basis of observation, measurement, and experiment. The weight of the evidence is assessed, where the hypothesis with the strongest support is the preferable hypothesis. When sufficient evidence becomes available, the preferable hypothesis also becomes acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science.5
Among the most important distinctions that need to be drawn in reasoning about alternative scenarios for historical events of the kind that matter here are those between different kinds of necessity, possibility and impossibility.6 Our language imposes some constraints upon the possible as functions of grammar and meaning. In ordinary English, for example, a freshman is a student, necessarily, because to be a freshman is to be a student in the first year of a four-year curriculum. By the same token, it is impossible to be a freshman and not be a student. The first is a logical necessity, the second a logical impossibility. Since a conspiracy requires at least two conspirators, if there were not at least two conspirators, it is not logically possible that a conspiracy was involved; if there were, then necessarily there was.
More interesting than logical necessities, possibilities and impossibilities, however, are physical necessities, possibilities and impossibilities.7 These are determined in relation to the laws of nature, which, unlike laws of society, cannot be violated, cannot be changed, and require no enforcement.8 If (pure) water freezes at 32° F at sea level atmospheric pressure, for example, then it is physically necessary for a sample of (pure) water to freeze when its temperature falls below 32° F at that pressure. Analogously, under those same conditions, that a sample of (pure) water would not freeze when its temperature falls below 32° F is physically impossible. And when a sample of (pure) water is not frozen at that temperature, it is justifiable to infer that it is therefore not at a temperature below its freezing point of 32° F.
Laws of nature are the core of science and provide the principles on the basis of which the occurrence of events can be systematically explained, predicted, and retrodicted.9 They therefore have an important role to play in reasoning about specific cases in which those principles make a difference. In legal reasoning, for example, the phrase, "beyond a reasonable doubt", means a standard of proof that requires subjective conviction that is equal to "moral certainty".10 In the context of scientific reasoning, the meaning of that same phrase is better captured by the objective standard that an explanation is "beyond reasonable doubt" when there is no reasonable alternative. Notice that the falsity of hypotheses that describe the occurrence of events that are physically impossible is beyond reasonable doubt.11"""
--- James H. Fetzer,
Distinguished McKnight University Professor
University of Minnesota Duluth
Department of Philosophy
University of Minnesota
James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California, on 6 December 1940. At graduation from South Pasadena High School in 1958, he was presented The Carver Award. He was magna cum laude in philosophy at Princeton University in 1962, where his senior thesis for Carl G. Hempel on the logical structure of explanations of human behavior won The Dickinson Prize. After being commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the Marine Corps, he became an artillery officer and served in the Far East. After a tour supervising recruit training in San Diego, he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work in the history and philosophy of science at Indiana in 1966. He completed his Ph.D. with a dissertation on probability and explanation for Wesley C. Salmon in 1970.
His initial faculty appointment was at the University of Kentucky, where he received the first Distinguished Teaching Award presented by the Student Government to 1 of 135 assistant professors. Since 1977, he has taught at a wide range of institutions of higher learning, including the Universities of Virginia (twice), Cincinnati, North Carolina at Chapel Hill, New College of the University of South Florida, and now the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota, where he has been since 1987. His honors include a research fellowship from the National Science Foundation and The Medal of the University of Helsinki. In 1996, he became one of the first ten faculty at the University of Minnesota to be appointed a Distinguished McKnight University Professor.
He has published more than 100 articles and reviews and 20 books in the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. On this web page, his publications have been divided by area, including special vitae for computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, evolution and cognition, and his applied philosophical research on the death of JFK. His biographical sketch has appeared in many reference works, including the DIRECTORY OF AMERICAN SCHOLARS, WHO'S WHO IN THE MIDWEST, WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA, and WHO'S WHO IN THE WORLD. It may be found, for example, in the DIRECTORY OF AMERICAN SCHOLARS, 10th edition, WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA, 55th edition (2001), and WHO'S WHO IN THE WORLD, 18th edition (2001).
Scientific reasoning characterizes a systematic pattern of thought involving four stages or steps, namely: puzzlement, speculation, adaptation, and explanation.4 Something occurs that does not fit comfortably into our background knowledge and expectations and thus becomes a source of puzzlement. Alternative theories that might possibly explain that occurrence are advanced for consideration. The available relevant evidence is brought to bear upon those hypotheses and their measures of evidential support are ascertained, where additional evidence may be obtained on the basis of observation, measurement, and experiment. The weight of the evidence is assessed, where the hypothesis with the strongest support is the preferable hypothesis. When sufficient evidence becomes available, the preferable hypothesis also becomes acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science.5
Among the most important distinctions that need to be drawn in reasoning about alternative scenarios for historical events of the kind that matter here are those between different kinds of necessity, possibility and impossibility.6 Our language imposes some constraints upon the possible as functions of grammar and meaning. In ordinary English, for example, a freshman is a student, necessarily, because to be a freshman is to be a student in the first year of a four-year curriculum. By the same token, it is impossible to be a freshman and not be a student. The first is a logical necessity, the second a logical impossibility. Since a conspiracy requires at least two conspirators, if there were not at least two conspirators, it is not logically possible that a conspiracy was involved; if there were, then necessarily there was.
More interesting than logical necessities, possibilities and impossibilities, however, are physical necessities, possibilities and impossibilities.7 These are determined in relation to the laws of nature, which, unlike laws of society, cannot be violated, cannot be changed, and require no enforcement.8 If (pure) water freezes at 32° F at sea level atmospheric pressure, for example, then it is physically necessary for a sample of (pure) water to freeze when its temperature falls below 32° F at that pressure. Analogously, under those same conditions, that a sample of (pure) water would not freeze when its temperature falls below 32° F is physically impossible. And when a sample of (pure) water is not frozen at that temperature, it is justifiable to infer that it is therefore not at a temperature below its freezing point of 32° F.
Laws of nature are the core of science and provide the principles on the basis of which the occurrence of events can be systematically explained, predicted, and retrodicted.9 They therefore have an important role to play in reasoning about specific cases in which those principles make a difference. In legal reasoning, for example, the phrase, "beyond a reasonable doubt", means a standard of proof that requires subjective conviction that is equal to "moral certainty".10 In the context of scientific reasoning, the meaning of that same phrase is better captured by the objective standard that an explanation is "beyond reasonable doubt" when there is no reasonable alternative. Notice that the falsity of hypotheses that describe the occurrence of events that are physically impossible is beyond reasonable doubt.11"""
--- James H. Fetzer,
Distinguished McKnight University Professor
University of Minnesota Duluth
Department of Philosophy
University of Minnesota
James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California, on 6 December 1940. At graduation from South Pasadena High School in 1958, he was presented The Carver Award. He was magna cum laude in philosophy at Princeton University in 1962, where his senior thesis for Carl G. Hempel on the logical structure of explanations of human behavior won The Dickinson Prize. After being commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the Marine Corps, he became an artillery officer and served in the Far East. After a tour supervising recruit training in San Diego, he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work in the history and philosophy of science at Indiana in 1966. He completed his Ph.D. with a dissertation on probability and explanation for Wesley C. Salmon in 1970.
His initial faculty appointment was at the University of Kentucky, where he received the first Distinguished Teaching Award presented by the Student Government to 1 of 135 assistant professors. Since 1977, he has taught at a wide range of institutions of higher learning, including the Universities of Virginia (twice), Cincinnati, North Carolina at Chapel Hill, New College of the University of South Florida, and now the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota, where he has been since 1987. His honors include a research fellowship from the National Science Foundation and The Medal of the University of Helsinki. In 1996, he became one of the first ten faculty at the University of Minnesota to be appointed a Distinguished McKnight University Professor.
He has published more than 100 articles and reviews and 20 books in the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. On this web page, his publications have been divided by area, including special vitae for computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, evolution and cognition, and his applied philosophical research on the death of JFK. His biographical sketch has appeared in many reference works, including the DIRECTORY OF AMERICAN SCHOLARS, WHO'S WHO IN THE MIDWEST, WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA, and WHO'S WHO IN THE WORLD. It may be found, for example, in the DIRECTORY OF AMERICAN SCHOLARS, 10th edition, WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA, 55th edition (2001), and WHO'S WHO IN THE WORLD, 18th edition (2001).
This is from "THINKING ABOUT "CONSPIRACY THEORIES": 9/11 and JFK"
The penultimate version of a chapter Fetzer has submitted to David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott for publication in their volume, 9/11 AND THE AMERICAN EMPIRE (forthcoming).
Fetzer is a truly brilliant guy and a great American.
The penultimate version of a chapter Fetzer has submitted to David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott for publication in their volume, 9/11 AND THE AMERICAN EMPIRE (forthcoming).
Fetzer is a truly brilliant guy and a great American.
galdur,
I read the post of "Scientific Reasoning" and loved it. I totally agree, and that also agrees with my statement about truth, something is either true or not true, possible or impossible.
And from there we can move into REASONABLE and UNREASONABLE.
According to all my research into the towers collapsing, it is not only unreasonable and ridiculous to conclude that explosives were not used, but IMPOSSIBLE.
The OJ Simpson case in my opinion was HIGHLY UNREASONABLE to think he was innocent, but the towers coming down without some type of explosives being used in my true opinion goes beyond the OJ case and is impossible.
What I also truly believe is that ANY, and I mean ANY scientist, professor, engineer or any other type of related professional who openly states that explosives were not used has completely lost all credibility, at least on that issue,
because it's obvious that any scientist who supports the fairy tale is indeed lying through his teeth, and all his colleagues know it.
This is not just based on my personal opinion, but true scientific fact, physics, gravity and the general laws of nature.
So whenever the truth is manifest there will most certainly be a lot of SHAME to go around, what are those people who have been misleading the public going to say? How are they going to justify selling themselves out?
The mental defects on this board might be able to hide behind some of the scam artists with PhD and say it wasn't there fault for believing in the lies because some one with credentials misled them, but that's not going to cut it, that won't cover the shame of face that belongs to them. Each person is accountable for their own actions and their own posts.
I read the post of "Scientific Reasoning" and loved it. I totally agree, and that also agrees with my statement about truth, something is either true or not true, possible or impossible.
And from there we can move into REASONABLE and UNREASONABLE.
According to all my research into the towers collapsing, it is not only unreasonable and ridiculous to conclude that explosives were not used, but IMPOSSIBLE.
The OJ Simpson case in my opinion was HIGHLY UNREASONABLE to think he was innocent, but the towers coming down without some type of explosives being used in my true opinion goes beyond the OJ case and is impossible.
What I also truly believe is that ANY, and I mean ANY scientist, professor, engineer or any other type of related professional who openly states that explosives were not used has completely lost all credibility, at least on that issue,
because it's obvious that any scientist who supports the fairy tale is indeed lying through his teeth, and all his colleagues know it.
This is not just based on my personal opinion, but true scientific fact, physics, gravity and the general laws of nature.
So whenever the truth is manifest there will most certainly be a lot of SHAME to go around, what are those people who have been misleading the public going to say? How are they going to justify selling themselves out?
The mental defects on this board might be able to hide behind some of the scam artists with PhD and say it wasn't there fault for believing in the lies because some one with credentials misled them, but that's not going to cut it, that won't cover the shame of face that belongs to them. Each person is accountable for their own actions and their own posts.
Thank you Steve.
Fetzer is an expert on the JFK assassination or should I say execution
and has been working on that with a team of seriously impressive
professionals each with their special expertise. So, he's probably very
well backed up as any 9/11 research is concerned as well. He has also
been researching something of a taboo the untimely death of
Paul Wellstone which was an extremely convenient event for the Bush
administration and it's Iraq war marketing in 2002.
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
Fetzer is an expert on the JFK assassination or should I say execution
and has been working on that with a team of seriously impressive
professionals each with their special expertise. So, he's probably very
well backed up as any 9/11 research is concerned as well. He has also
been researching something of a taboo the untimely death of
Paul Wellstone which was an extremely convenient event for the Bush
administration and it's Iraq war marketing in 2002.
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 4 2006, 09:11 AM)
The mental defects on this board might be able to hide behind some of the scam artists with PhD and say it wasn't there fault for believing in the lies because some one with credentials misled them, but that's not going to cut it, that won't cover the shame of face that belongs to them. Each person is accountable for their own actions and their own posts.
I feel your pain.
Jerry Russell PhD suckered you like a rube at a sideshow!
I was just wondering when you plan on removing his 'paper' from your web site?
http://www.iwilltryit.com/proof1.htm
Russell admitted it was BS over 3 years ago.
http://www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm
"""But if explosives were really used then that would mean little bush isn't a very honest man"""
Baby Bush is first and foremost a lunatic, a psychopath.
I believe he will eventually be locked away at a proper
institution. Most of his handlers will be executed though.
But this is a bi-partisan case and it stretches back to long
before Bush came to power. So, some high-level democrats
will most likely be sent to the great beyond too.
But the Bush administration will prove useful in one major
regard. The interrogations will be real easy. After all their
own definitions of torture and guidelines for proper interrogation
techniques will be used. Waterboarding is a very effective
technique. Of course some of the weak of heart will croak
during these "non-torture" interrogations and that will be too
bad - but shift does happen.
Baby Bush is first and foremost a lunatic, a psychopath.
I believe he will eventually be locked away at a proper
institution. Most of his handlers will be executed though.
But this is a bi-partisan case and it stretches back to long
before Bush came to power. So, some high-level democrats
will most likely be sent to the great beyond too.
But the Bush administration will prove useful in one major
regard. The interrogations will be real easy. After all their
own definitions of torture and guidelines for proper interrogation
techniques will be used. Waterboarding is a very effective
technique. Of course some of the weak of heart will croak
during these "non-torture" interrogations and that will be too
bad - but shift does happen.
galdur,
Regarding torturing little bush so as to reveal information about the other neo/con terrorists, you might say "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" or "If you live by the sword you die by the sword" or as in the scriptures, I'm reminded of the story of Esther, where an evil guy named Haman erected some gallows to hang a bunch of innocent guys and at the end of the story Haman was hanged by his own rope.
But since they think it's fair to torture terrorists, and they themselves are the biggest known terrorists to the US and probably the world then it only seems fair they should take some of their own medicine.
But in all honesty I think most reasonable people know that little bush can't even speak for himself, but needs script writers and transmitters in his ear so he can take his orders from other people.
http://www.mandrillstudios.com/news.html
All you have to do is look at the 7 minutes he sat in the class room on 9/11, looking like a deer caught in your headlights, not having a clue about what to do, other than wait for his daddy or someone else to give him instructions.
The real culprits of 9/11 probably include Cheny, daddy Bush and many others, whereas little bush Jr. is nothing more than spoiled little brat playing the president.
Boy that poor Costal sure has gone off the deep end, actually implying that real physics involved with the collapse of the towers rests entirely on the credibility or lack thereof from one PhD. IE; Jerry Russel.
Pretty funny how the brain dead nit-wits try to divert the issue of physics, gravity and the laws of nature into a pissing match about someones reputation. I wonder if they learned that their training in propaganda 101. If so, they better go back to school and learn how to be a better B.S.er, because their BS isn't working very well, in fact it's backfiring all over the face.
Pretty sad though to see how far down the scum-hole some of these people have sunk, but I guess it makes for entertaining dog and pony exercises.
Regarding torturing little bush so as to reveal information about the other neo/con terrorists, you might say "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" or "If you live by the sword you die by the sword" or as in the scriptures, I'm reminded of the story of Esther, where an evil guy named Haman erected some gallows to hang a bunch of innocent guys and at the end of the story Haman was hanged by his own rope.
But since they think it's fair to torture terrorists, and they themselves are the biggest known terrorists to the US and probably the world then it only seems fair they should take some of their own medicine.
But in all honesty I think most reasonable people know that little bush can't even speak for himself, but needs script writers and transmitters in his ear so he can take his orders from other people.
http://www.mandrillstudios.com/news.html
All you have to do is look at the 7 minutes he sat in the class room on 9/11, looking like a deer caught in your headlights, not having a clue about what to do, other than wait for his daddy or someone else to give him instructions.
The real culprits of 9/11 probably include Cheny, daddy Bush and many others, whereas little bush Jr. is nothing more than spoiled little brat playing the president.
Boy that poor Costal sure has gone off the deep end, actually implying that real physics involved with the collapse of the towers rests entirely on the credibility or lack thereof from one PhD. IE; Jerry Russel.
Pretty funny how the brain dead nit-wits try to divert the issue of physics, gravity and the laws of nature into a pissing match about someones reputation. I wonder if they learned that their training in propaganda 101. If so, they better go back to school and learn how to be a better B.S.er, because their BS isn't working very well, in fact it's backfiring all over the face.
Pretty sad though to see how far down the scum-hole some of these people have sunk, but I guess it makes for entertaining dog and pony exercises.
Coastal,
What a total scam you guys got their on 9/11 strike, what an obvious scam that is.
Jerry Russel had it right the first time. Whatever garbage you got going on the site is typical for the propagandists. They have no morals, nor do they feel shame when they lie about people's identities, and you think we should take these idiots seriously. Just because all the nit-wits hang their hats on these totally ridiculous websites that actually state magicians in a cave suspended the laws of physics on 9/11.
It's most likely a typical scam, like all the other hogwash and BS you fairy tale supporters put out. Anybody can say I'm Jerry Russel, yada, yada, yada.
In fact maybe there is someone with the same name who didn't mind prostituting his name out for a few bucks, but the original article by Jerry was pretty accurate. ANYBODY WHO SAYS EXPLOSIVES WEREN'T USED IS LYING.
Got it? Good. It's just that simple. The only other excuse for making such a blatantly ignorant statement is if the person has no knowledge whatsoever, and if that's the case they'd have to be masquerading as someone with knowledge.
But I'll say this one more time, ANYBODY WHO CLAIMS THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIVES IS LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH. I know it, you know it, and I'm sure they know it. The question is how long are you going to support out and out lies?
Remember it's a SHAMEFUL THING TO CONTINUE LYING TO PEOPLE, especially about something as important as this event. People are getting killed based on this lie, so those who support it will have to share in the responsibility.
Dancing around with you monkeys might have been entertaining for a while, but it's really starting to get boring, playing with all numbskull's. If it wasn't for a few intelligent people on this board, such as galdur, and a few others I would have left a long time ago never to return to such a childish message board.
What a total scam you guys got their on 9/11 strike, what an obvious scam that is.
Jerry Russel had it right the first time. Whatever garbage you got going on the site is typical for the propagandists. They have no morals, nor do they feel shame when they lie about people's identities, and you think we should take these idiots seriously. Just because all the nit-wits hang their hats on these totally ridiculous websites that actually state magicians in a cave suspended the laws of physics on 9/11.
It's most likely a typical scam, like all the other hogwash and BS you fairy tale supporters put out. Anybody can say I'm Jerry Russel, yada, yada, yada.
In fact maybe there is someone with the same name who didn't mind prostituting his name out for a few bucks, but the original article by Jerry was pretty accurate. ANYBODY WHO SAYS EXPLOSIVES WEREN'T USED IS LYING.
Got it? Good. It's just that simple. The only other excuse for making such a blatantly ignorant statement is if the person has no knowledge whatsoever, and if that's the case they'd have to be masquerading as someone with knowledge.
But I'll say this one more time, ANYBODY WHO CLAIMS THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIVES IS LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH. I know it, you know it, and I'm sure they know it. The question is how long are you going to support out and out lies?
Remember it's a SHAMEFUL THING TO CONTINUE LYING TO PEOPLE, especially about something as important as this event. People are getting killed based on this lie, so those who support it will have to share in the responsibility.
Dancing around with you monkeys might have been entertaining for a while, but it's really starting to get boring, playing with all numbskull's. If it wasn't for a few intelligent people on this board, such as galdur, and a few others I would have left a long time ago never to return to such a childish message board.
Focusing on Bush is a mistake and deflects attention from
his handlers. Sure, he's the top guy in name but the last
president who really tried to be his own man was JFK and
he was soon executed.
I believe the 9/11 was perpetrated for both political and
financial reasons. Quite a few birds were killed with one
stone so to speak. War is a huge business and the perfect
excuse for deficits and money printing. An endless war
against an undefined and invisible enemy is the perfect
one in this regard.
And the towers needed to be brought down. However this
was impossible under normal conditions. You don´t evacuate
Manhattan for such a thing.
It's a crime of many levels and layers.
One thing is for sure; letting the criminals get away with
it is asking for more and even massive attacks.
his handlers. Sure, he's the top guy in name but the last
president who really tried to be his own man was JFK and
he was soon executed.
I believe the 9/11 was perpetrated for both political and
financial reasons. Quite a few birds were killed with one
stone so to speak. War is a huge business and the perfect
excuse for deficits and money printing. An endless war
against an undefined and invisible enemy is the perfect
one in this regard.
And the towers needed to be brought down. However this
was impossible under normal conditions. You don´t evacuate
Manhattan for such a thing.
It's a crime of many levels and layers.
One thing is for sure; letting the criminals get away with
it is asking for more and even massive attacks.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 4 2006, 07:23 AM)
You know, metamars... as much as I agree with with you on the 'Bizarro-Zoo theory', I personally do NOT believe that Zdenek P. Bazant was 'participatory' in the development of the Fairy Tale.
I think he was USED.
Then why haven't they stated this to be the case?
In theoretical physics, to publish highly speculative papers that are mathematically correct but that even the authors don't believe will exist in reality is not unusual. E.g., if you listen to Michio Kaku, you know that physicists have published many "blue prints" for time machines that use wormholes.Since at least some of them depend on exotic matter with negative energy, or other unlikely items, I'm doubtful that anybody takes them too seriously. Which doesn't mean they aren't contributions to the field.
BZ is supposed to illuminate an engineering issue that, when it was published, recently involved the deaths of thousands of people.
Not ever having dabbled in engineering (except on this thread
) and knowing little about the field, I'm not really privy to their practices. (I had assumed that they were always much more conservative than physicists*.) Nevertheless, I wonder: Is speculation by engineers that ignores basic properties of steel at all appropriate? For any reason, ever?Even if the top of the building had remained intact, what chance does their paper have of telling us anything useful re WTC collapses after the first few micro or milli seconds?
NOTHING that I can make out.
I want to make it clear that I can only speculate as to their motives, and in general, don't like doing that because it implies knowledge that I don't and can't have. Even in this specific case, as upsetting as what I perceive to be the damage from their paper has been, I will not break that rule.
I would like to call them to account for their paper, however, and it's perfectly legitimate, not to mention fair, to ask them what the heck they were thinking.
* Indeed, then I was in grad school for applied mathematics, I took a course in engineering mathematics, and our professor always used to say "If the bridge falls down, nobody will care that you made a little math mistake". In an exam, I solved a problem correctly except for - you guessed it - a minor math mistake. He gave me 0 credit, with the usual "collapsing bridge" line.
When I reminded him that I was an Applied Mathematic student (for whom it was self-evident that there was no chance of building brides), he still refused to change my grade.
BZ may be mathematically correct, but I fail to see why I or anybody else should give it any credit. And that is because it is wrong, in principal over it's assumed domain.
IMO, the honorable thing for them to do is to defend it, or retract it.
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 4 2006, 07:38 AM)
The towers had quite extensive sprinkler systems.
They had massive defenses against fire.
This goes without saying.
It's interesting how some people avoid these fundamental facts
but I guess they don´t consider a water soaked environment
very supportive to their nonsensical fantasies.
After the fuel had burned up after circa 15 minutes (even FEMA
was forced to admit it had) the fire had little to work on. Obviously
this isn't a "fire friendly" environment. So it was a smoldering cool
fire producing very dark and black smoke typical.
Steel conducts heat. Each tower contained something like 200 thousand
tons of it. The notion that heat could somehow magically avoid being
conducted away from the parts being heated and stubbornly cling to
a fraction of the steel structure is total nonsense and absolutely
physically impossible.
Explosives brought down the towers. It's the only rational explanation.
Since the official conspiracy theory holds no water whatsover and isn't
even physically possible it must be rejected as useless. Clearly.
Sprinkler systems with no water are useless.
I have asked , oh so many times, IF the steel was capable of conducting the heat of fuel and office fires so efficiently that it was not possible for the steel to reach dangerous temperatures then why go through the expense and bother of insulation installation at all.
WHY WILL NO ONE VENTURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION???
They had massive defenses against fire.
This goes without saying.
It's interesting how some people avoid these fundamental facts
but I guess they don´t consider a water soaked environment
very supportive to their nonsensical fantasies.
After the fuel had burned up after circa 15 minutes (even FEMA
was forced to admit it had) the fire had little to work on. Obviously
this isn't a "fire friendly" environment. So it was a smoldering cool
fire producing very dark and black smoke typical.
Steel conducts heat. Each tower contained something like 200 thousand
tons of it. The notion that heat could somehow magically avoid being
conducted away from the parts being heated and stubbornly cling to
a fraction of the steel structure is total nonsense and absolutely
physically impossible.
Explosives brought down the towers. It's the only rational explanation.
Since the official conspiracy theory holds no water whatsover and isn't
even physically possible it must be rejected as useless. Clearly.
Sprinkler systems with no water are useless.
I have asked , oh so many times, IF the steel was capable of conducting the heat of fuel and office fires so efficiently that it was not possible for the steel to reach dangerous temperatures then why go through the expense and bother of insulation installation at all.
WHY WILL NO ONE VENTURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION???
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 4 2006, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 4 2006, 07:23 AM)
You know, metamars... as much as I agree with with you on the 'Bizarro-Zoo theory', I personally do NOT believe that Zdenek P. Bazant was 'participatory' in the development of the Fairy Tale.
I think he was USED.
And that is because it is wrong, in principal over it's assumed domain.
Poorly spoken. What I should have said is:
And that is because it is wrong, in principal over it's implicit domain.
QUOTE
* Indeed, then I was in grad school for applied mathematics, I took a course in engineering mathematics, and our professor always used to say "If the bridge falls down, nobody will care that you made a little math mistake". In an exam, I solved a problem correctly except for - you guessed it - a minor math mistake. He gave me 0 credit, with the usual "collapsing bridge" line.
Indeed I also had one instructor who used essentially the same line.
His tests and exams gave a 1 for a correct answer with the work shown and 0 for an incorrect answer , no matter if the work was correct except for a minor mistake such as a sign change.
B-Z however state that theirs is a preliminary study that simplifies some aspects of the collapse. They had no way of knowing some of the starting conditions so they use a simplified approach.Their simplified approach however still shows a very large difference between the ability of the building to absorb an impact and the impact it received.
steve, who was attacking Russell or Jones on the basis of their religion?
I only attack you for spouting off about yours here because it is irrelevant
I only attack you for spouting off about yours here because it is irrelevant
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Jan 4 2006, 01:53 PM)
I have asked , oh so many times, IF the steel was capable of conducting the heat of fuel and office fires so efficiently that it was not possible for the steel to reach dangerous temperatures then why go through the expense and bother of insulation installation at all.
WHY WILL NO ONE VENTURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION???
I discussed this with my cousin, an architect. The point of fire-proofing is to limit the fire to it's point of origin, long enough to that occupants can escape.
Though my cousin didn't say so explicitly, this clearly speaks to heat conduction through steel. If heat was a poor enough conductor, there would be no need to insulate it. Insulating it mitigates :
1) heat entering the steel near the fire
2) heat leaving the steel away from the fire, where it can start other fires and/or make the environment so hot that people cannot pass through it
Since building fires cannot melt steel, the insulation is certainly not there to prevent that.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask the question : how much did the steel weaken due to fire. Nobody has a definitive answer (nobody CAN have an ABSOLUTELY definitive answer, without computer simulations)
I have addressed this quite a bit in my posts, and hope to address it more in the future. I still intend to solve an idealized ex. of the heat eqn., and fully expect it to show pretty much what the steady state solution showed: a tiny fraction of heat generated by WTC fires actually flowed into the steel.
So, the bottom line is this: heat is a good enough conductor such that you WANT to fireproof it, but a poor enough conductor such that the vast majority of heat generated in building fires escapes into the atmosphere, and does not magically go into the steel. Thus, using this as some kind of proof of WTC collapses is not justified, unless you can rigorously show otherwise.*
I must admit that I still don't quantitatively have a handle on the effects of heat transfer due to radiation, but consider it relatively minor, even if it exceeds that due to conduction. I can put my finger 2 inches to the side of a stove flame on high, and all sources of heat put together do not make me pull it away. I cannot put my finger 2 inches above the stove flame, and neither can FEMA or NIST.
* speaking of which: I'm pretty sure somebody raised the question, already, but some handle on temperatures inside the WTC building can be had by considering the degree that windows melted or warped or possibly cracked due to thermal expansion. Did anybody ever look into this?
WHY WILL NO ONE VENTURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION???
I discussed this with my cousin, an architect. The point of fire-proofing is to limit the fire to it's point of origin, long enough to that occupants can escape.
Though my cousin didn't say so explicitly, this clearly speaks to heat conduction through steel. If heat was a poor enough conductor, there would be no need to insulate it. Insulating it mitigates :
1) heat entering the steel near the fire
2) heat leaving the steel away from the fire, where it can start other fires and/or make the environment so hot that people cannot pass through it
Since building fires cannot melt steel, the insulation is certainly not there to prevent that.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask the question : how much did the steel weaken due to fire. Nobody has a definitive answer (nobody CAN have an ABSOLUTELY definitive answer, without computer simulations)
I have addressed this quite a bit in my posts, and hope to address it more in the future. I still intend to solve an idealized ex. of the heat eqn., and fully expect it to show pretty much what the steady state solution showed: a tiny fraction of heat generated by WTC fires actually flowed into the steel.
So, the bottom line is this: heat is a good enough conductor such that you WANT to fireproof it, but a poor enough conductor such that the vast majority of heat generated in building fires escapes into the atmosphere, and does not magically go into the steel. Thus, using this as some kind of proof of WTC collapses is not justified, unless you can rigorously show otherwise.*
I must admit that I still don't quantitatively have a handle on the effects of heat transfer due to radiation, but consider it relatively minor, even if it exceeds that due to conduction. I can put my finger 2 inches to the side of a stove flame on high, and all sources of heat put together do not make me pull it away. I cannot put my finger 2 inches above the stove flame, and neither can FEMA or NIST.
* speaking of which: I'm pretty sure somebody raised the question, already, but some handle on temperatures inside the WTC building can be had by considering the degree that windows melted or warped or possibly cracked due to thermal expansion. Did anybody ever look into this?
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Jan 4 2006, 01:59 PM)
B-Z however state that theirs is a preliminary study that simplifies some aspects of the collapse. They had no way of knowing some of the starting conditions so they use a simplified approach.Their simplified approach however still shows a very large difference between the ability of the building to absorb an impact and the impact it received.
Are you claiming that it CORRECTLY " shows a very large difference between the ability of the building to absorb an impact and the impact it received."?
If so, please explain to us how this can possibly be the case. Does real steel obey Hooke's law, right up until the point of fracture, or doesn't it? If it doesn't, and if the deformation that occurs after Hooke's Law is no longer a good approximation soaks up a TREMENDOUS amount of energy, then how does their treatment get around this, in a way that would not make my old engineering mathematics professor (or your old professor, for that matter) shake his head?
Are you claiming that it CORRECTLY " shows a very large difference between the ability of the building to absorb an impact and the impact it received."?
If so, please explain to us how this can possibly be the case. Does real steel obey Hooke's law, right up until the point of fracture, or doesn't it? If it doesn't, and if the deformation that occurs after Hooke's Law is no longer a good approximation soaks up a TREMENDOUS amount of energy, then how does their treatment get around this, in a way that would not make my old engineering mathematics professor (or your old professor, for that matter) shake his head?
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 4 2006, 02:28 PM)
So, the bottom line is this: heat is a good enough conductor such that you WANT to fireproof it, but a poor enough conductor such that the vast majority of heat generated in building fires escapes into the atmosphere, and does not magically go into the steel. *
This is a little misleading, but as it basically understates the case, that's OK. The reason that so little of the heat due to fire in the WTC buildings went into steel is not simply the limiting factor of it's heat conductivity relative to the temperature of the ambient air, but also due to the fact that heat transfer from air, which is an inferior conductor of heat than steel, should thus also be limited by the ambient air's heat conductivity.
How much, I don't know. Also, come to think of it, the gasses that result from combustion aren't going to have exactly the same conductivity as normal air, so I am assuming that they are similar. In any event, should be less than that of steel.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 4 2006, 01:39 AM)
metamars,
Sorry about misspelling your handle name in the last post, I got it now.
That's no problem at all.
I do have a problem with all the insults you regularly toss out in your posts, though. Do you think insulting people helps convince them of anything, or convinces other people who are not the targets of your insults that you are rational?
Do you think, by doing this, you help our side of the debate?
I sure don't. Please stop it.
Sorry about misspelling your handle name in the last post, I got it now.
That's no problem at all.
I do have a problem with all the insults you regularly toss out in your posts, though. Do you think insulting people helps convince them of anything, or convinces other people who are not the targets of your insults that you are rational?
Do you think, by doing this, you help our side of the debate?
I sure don't. Please stop it.
Sprinkler systems with no water?
What sort of nonsense is this?
What sort of nonsense is this?
QUOTE
I discussed this with my cousin, an architect. The point of fire-proofing is to limit the fire to it's point of origin, long enough to that occupants can escape.
That is more the role of fire stops between offices spaces. Drywall floor to the drop ceiling and all panels of a drop ceiling being filled is a norm for this. We have had the fire cheif point out broken ceiling tiles in our drop ceiling before and ordered them replaced for this purpose
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I discussed this with my cousin, an architect. The point of fire-proofing is to limit the fire to it's point of origin, long enough to that occupants can escape. |
That is more the role of fire stops between offices spaces. Drywall floor to the drop ceiling and all panels of a drop ceiling being filled is a norm for this. We have had the fire cheif point out broken ceiling tiles in our drop ceiling before and ordered them replaced for this purpose
Though my cousin didn't say so explicitly, this clearly speaks to heat conduction through steel. If heat was a poor enough conductor, there would be no need to insulate it. Insulating it mitigates :
1) heat entering the steel near the fire
2) heat leaving the steel away from the fire, where it can start other fires and/or make the environment so hot that people cannot pass through it
So, you are saying that the structural columns could conduct enough heat to ignite material on adjacent floors but that this temp is not enough to compromise the strength of the steel at all?
I will have to look it up again but this is not how I recall a fire engineering site describing the reason for steel insulation.(Cardington perhaps?)
QUOTE
Since building fires cannot melt steel, the insulation is certainly not there to prevent that.
OMIGAWD, I did not expect that you would be saying that anyone has seriously stated that the fires were hot enough to melt steel. I know I haven't. Was this just a case of overstatement on your part?
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Jan 4 2006, 01:53 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 4 2006, 07:38 AM)
The towers had quite extensive sprinkler systems.
They had massive defenses against fire.
This goes without saying.
It's interesting how some people avoid these fundamental facts
but I guess they don´t consider a water soaked environment
very supportive to their nonsensical fantasies.
After the fuel had burned up after circa 15 minutes (even FEMA
was forced to admit it had) the fire had little to work on. Obviously
this isn't a "fire friendly" environment. So it was a smoldering cool
fire producing very dark and black smoke typical.
Steel conducts heat. Each tower contained something like 200 thousand
tons of it. The notion that heat could somehow magically avoid being
conducted away from the parts being heated and stubbornly cling to
a fraction of the steel structure is total nonsense and absolutely
physically impossible.
Explosives brought down the towers. It's the only rational explanation.
Since the official conspiracy theory holds no water whatsover and isn't
even physically possible it must be rejected as useless. Clearly.
Sprinkler systems with no water are useless.
I have asked , oh so many times, IF the steel was capable of conducting the heat of fuel and office fires so efficiently that it was not possible for the steel to reach dangerous temperatures then why go through the expense and bother of insulation installation at all.
WHY WILL NO ONE VENTURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION???
They had MINIMAL DEFENSES against fire.
The sprinklers were a FIRE SUPPRESSION system, designed to keep fires from spreading until put out by Firefighters.
There design anticipated operating only 8 sprinkler heads at one time.
After the impact they were useless as the pipes connecting them to the sprinkler heads was cut, which is why people evacuating the towers reported water running down the stairs.
There was MORE "fuel" on the impacted floors than were in the Jet (even fully loaded). Fuel is paper, office furnishings, carpet, decorations etc etc.
Look at the Madrid Fire, no fuel from jet, what the hell do you think is burning??
The WTC had a tube within a tube design, the center core ended up acting like a huge chimney, funneling air to the fire, which was why the helo said it "was glowing red in the center" shortly before it fell.
Watch the volume of smoke pouring from the tower, this volume of smoke could NOT come from a "smoldering cool fire". In order for this massive volume of smoke one had to heat a LOT of incoming air and that heated air could only come from a hot fire with a fresh air supply. Even so the amount of incoming air was not sufficient to support complete combustion of much of the plastic and synthetic material in the building and they gave off the CLASSIC toxic black smoke.
Watch the videos of the start of the collapse, you will see fire spurt out the side as the top section impacts the burning floors, as well as the upper floors.
Every few pages we see the picture of the woman standing next to the impact hole as "proof" there was no fire. Problem is that was the UPWIND side, it was quickly cooled by the INCOMING AIR. The Fire was mainly on the other side of the building, see NIST diagrams.
Steel is a relatively poor conductor of heat, which is why it makes good FRYING PANS. You know the classic large frying pan used to make Southern Style Fried Chicken. You cook the chicken at 350 deg, about an hour, and you know what, the entire time you can hold the STEEL handle, just several inches from the 350 deg oil.
Watch a picture of a blacksmith some time.
That section he heats up to glowing will STAY glowing for some time, but the glow won't progress down the piece. It will be held, usually by steel pliers a foot or so away, but with BARE hands while he pounds on the hot end for several minutes, still it doesn't get too hot to hold.
So even if the core got red hot (they didn't) it STILL wouldn't have conducted the heat to the other 200,000 lbs of steel. This continued reference to the total amount of steel in the building acting as a heat sink is DISINFORMATION, since the heat only affected a SMALL percent of the steel.
Arthur
They had massive defenses against fire.
This goes without saying.
It's interesting how some people avoid these fundamental facts
but I guess they don´t consider a water soaked environment
very supportive to their nonsensical fantasies.
After the fuel had burned up after circa 15 minutes (even FEMA
was forced to admit it had) the fire had little to work on. Obviously
this isn't a "fire friendly" environment. So it was a smoldering cool
fire producing very dark and black smoke typical.
Steel conducts heat. Each tower contained something like 200 thousand
tons of it. The notion that heat could somehow magically avoid being
conducted away from the parts being heated and stubbornly cling to
a fraction of the steel structure is total nonsense and absolutely
physically impossible.
Explosives brought down the towers. It's the only rational explanation.
Since the official conspiracy theory holds no water whatsover and isn't
even physically possible it must be rejected as useless. Clearly.
Sprinkler systems with no water are useless.
I have asked , oh so many times, IF the steel was capable of conducting the heat of fuel and office fires so efficiently that it was not possible for the steel to reach dangerous temperatures then why go through the expense and bother of insulation installation at all.
WHY WILL NO ONE VENTURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION???
They had MINIMAL DEFENSES against fire.
The sprinklers were a FIRE SUPPRESSION system, designed to keep fires from spreading until put out by Firefighters.
There design anticipated operating only 8 sprinkler heads at one time.
After the impact they were useless as the pipes connecting them to the sprinkler heads was cut, which is why people evacuating the towers reported water running down the stairs.
There was MORE "fuel" on the impacted floors than were in the Jet (even fully loaded). Fuel is paper, office furnishings, carpet, decorations etc etc.
Look at the Madrid Fire, no fuel from jet, what the hell do you think is burning??
The WTC had a tube within a tube design, the center core ended up acting like a huge chimney, funneling air to the fire, which was why the helo said it "was glowing red in the center" shortly before it fell.
Watch the volume of smoke pouring from the tower, this volume of smoke could NOT come from a "smoldering cool fire". In order for this massive volume of smoke one had to heat a LOT of incoming air and that heated air could only come from a hot fire with a fresh air supply. Even so the amount of incoming air was not sufficient to support complete combustion of much of the plastic and synthetic material in the building and they gave off the CLASSIC toxic black smoke.
Watch the videos of the start of the collapse, you will see fire spurt out the side as the top section impacts the burning floors, as well as the upper floors.
Every few pages we see the picture of the woman standing next to the impact hole as "proof" there was no fire. Problem is that was the UPWIND side, it was quickly cooled by the INCOMING AIR. The Fire was mainly on the other side of the building, see NIST diagrams.
Steel is a relatively poor conductor of heat, which is why it makes good FRYING PANS. You know the classic large frying pan used to make Southern Style Fried Chicken. You cook the chicken at 350 deg, about an hour, and you know what, the entire time you can hold the STEEL handle, just several inches from the 350 deg oil.
Watch a picture of a blacksmith some time.
That section he heats up to glowing will STAY glowing for some time, but the glow won't progress down the piece. It will be held, usually by steel pliers a foot or so away, but with BARE hands while he pounds on the hot end for several minutes, still it doesn't get too hot to hold.
So even if the core got red hot (they didn't) it STILL wouldn't have conducted the heat to the other 200,000 lbs of steel. This continued reference to the total amount of steel in the building acting as a heat sink is DISINFORMATION, since the heat only affected a SMALL percent of the steel.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 4 2006, 03:26 PM)
Sprinkler systems with no water?
What sort of nonsense is this?
If a plane rips through the building and cuts the supply pipes to the sprinkler system then there the water drains away through the break, no pressure beyond that point. If the supply is a roof tank then it soon drains away, if the supply is from below then it now has no way to get to the fire.
AFAIK, there are no reports of any sprinkler systems spraying on the affected floors.
What sort of nonsense is this?
If a plane rips through the building and cuts the supply pipes to the sprinkler system then there the water drains away through the break, no pressure beyond that point. If the supply is a roof tank then it soon drains away, if the supply is from below then it now has no way to get to the fire.
AFAIK, there are no reports of any sprinkler systems spraying on the affected floors.
These skyscrapers had minimal fire defences?
I find that very hard to believe?
Anyway, water was introduced and it had a cooling effect
and certainly retarded the fire. After the fuel had burned up
the fires were weak and cool as evidenced by the very dark
and black fire. There is no way around this. Invisible fires
are not likely to be weakening steel structures, People were
seen standing in the hole made by the plane. This is a documented
fact, whether you like it or not Arthur.
Since fires have never ever brought down steel high rises except
on Sept. 11th (according to the official conspiracy theory) it has
never been any concern at all. There has been no reevaluation
of skyscrapers after Sept. 11th which presumably means that
nobody takes such a threat seriously.
If you really believe that office fires can bring down massive sky-
scrapers then why don´t you call on the Government to issue an
all out alert regarding the safety of such buildings. It's a little late
after four years but isn´t it highly irresponsible to ignore this
supposed hazard?
Face it nobody believes in such a threat. Since it has only materialized
on one day out of 40,000 during the history of steel high rises
and then in three such buildings the same day(probably a one in a
billion chance) everybody sees that it did not happen. The towers and
building #7 were demolished.
I find that very hard to believe?
Anyway, water was introduced and it had a cooling effect
and certainly retarded the fire. After the fuel had burned up
the fires were weak and cool as evidenced by the very dark
and black fire. There is no way around this. Invisible fires
are not likely to be weakening steel structures, People were
seen standing in the hole made by the plane. This is a documented
fact, whether you like it or not Arthur.
Since fires have never ever brought down steel high rises except
on Sept. 11th (according to the official conspiracy theory) it has
never been any concern at all. There has been no reevaluation
of skyscrapers after Sept. 11th which presumably means that
nobody takes such a threat seriously.
If you really believe that office fires can bring down massive sky-
scrapers then why don´t you call on the Government to issue an
all out alert regarding the safety of such buildings. It's a little late
after four years but isn´t it highly irresponsible to ignore this
supposed hazard?
Face it nobody believes in such a threat. Since it has only materialized
on one day out of 40,000 during the history of steel high rises
and then in three such buildings the same day(probably a one in a
billion chance) everybody sees that it did not happen. The towers and
building #7 were demolished.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 4 2006, 03:37 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 4 2006, 03:26 PM)
Sprinkler systems with no water?
What sort of nonsense is this?
If a plane rips through the building and cuts the supply pipes to the sprinkler system then there the water drains away through the break, no pressure beyond that point. If the supply is a roof tank then it soon drains away, if the supply is from below then it now has no way to get to the fire.
AFAIK, there are no reports of any sprinkler systems spraying on the affected floors.
Well, there are no reports of heat weakening steel
either. There are reports of people being seen standing
around where steel was supposed to be weakening or
melting though.
There are speculations that heat weakened the steel to the point
that the towers were flattened. That is all.
I find it extremely hard to believe that the sprinklers did not work.
There is no evidence that they didn't. They were there and are
designed to work in fires. This is known and no speculation.
What sort of nonsense is this?
If a plane rips through the building and cuts the supply pipes to the sprinkler system then there the water drains away through the break, no pressure beyond that point. If the supply is a roof tank then it soon drains away, if the supply is from below then it now has no way to get to the fire.
AFAIK, there are no reports of any sprinkler systems spraying on the affected floors.
Well, there are no reports of heat weakening steel
either. There are reports of people being seen standing
around where steel was supposed to be weakening or
melting though.
There are speculations that heat weakened the steel to the point
that the towers were flattened. That is all.
I find it extremely hard to believe that the sprinklers did not work.
There is no evidence that they didn't. They were there and are
designed to work in fires. This is known and no speculation.
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 4 2006, 03:45 PM)
These skyscrapers had minimal fire defences?
I find that very hard to believe?
Anyway, water was introduced and it had a cooling effect
and certainly retarded the fire. After the fuel had burned up
the fires were weak and cool as evidenced by the very dark
and black fire. There is no way around this. Invisible fires
are not likely to be weakening steel structures, People were
seen standing in the hole made by the plane. This is a documented
fact, whether you like it or not Arthur.
You are a COMPLETE MORON.
Do you not understand UPWIND side?
Fresh air was coming IN that hole she was standing next too.
The HEAT WAS GOING OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
Are you TOO STUPID to read the Friggin NIST REPORT or do you want to REMAIN this STUPID?
Arthur
I find that very hard to believe?
Anyway, water was introduced and it had a cooling effect
and certainly retarded the fire. After the fuel had burned up
the fires were weak and cool as evidenced by the very dark
and black fire. There is no way around this. Invisible fires
are not likely to be weakening steel structures, People were
seen standing in the hole made by the plane. This is a documented
fact, whether you like it or not Arthur.
You are a COMPLETE MORON.
Do you not understand UPWIND side?
Fresh air was coming IN that hole she was standing next too.
The HEAT WAS GOING OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
Are you TOO STUPID to read the Friggin NIST REPORT or do you want to REMAIN this STUPID?
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 3 2006, 08:58 PM)
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.
This would never work with waffles! What if waffles were the correct analogy??
But seriously, what evidence do you have for
"Note the columns fall further away the lower it gets to ground level."
You are, of course, implying that the lower column portions that got ejected laterally got ejected at higher velocity, are you not? The problem is, I don't believe anybody can see this due to the obstructed view caused by the expanding debris cloud. See
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc...ncrete.full.jpg
NOTE: To get the full impact of this picture, please click the link.
The picture above speaks to a disintegrated core, and "pancakes" that more closely resemble flour. Not even waffles.
The picture above speaks to a disintegrated core, and "pancakes" that more closely resemble flour. Not even waffles.
As I said, the place you see this "Nub" is where the mechanical levels are.
In the picture above, you see even more evidence of directed energy, with "nubs" that encompass most of the core cross section, and roughly a third of it's height, rising much more than the height of the previous "nub" I pointed out. It defies my imagination to blame these on mechanical floors, or even an exploding transformer.
Can you explain to me why a transformer would explode vertically, and furthermore not exhibit any "transformer pieces", but instead resemble smoke?
In my view, the photo above dramatically points to two different demolition modalities, much like our Finnish military expert friend claimed.
I note that I still have not abadoned my micro-nuke hypothesis (for the core), though I certainly can't prove it.
I agree that an explosion doesn't start out slow and then progress. A demoltion involving some type of directed energy need not be due to high explosives. I remind you that the mysterious spire was "demolished" in place, as it were, none-explosively, and the end result was, essentially, smoke.
I have often argued that demoltion need not equal explosives....
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.
This would never work with waffles! What if waffles were the correct analogy??
But seriously, what evidence do you have for
"Note the columns fall further away the lower it gets to ground level."
You are, of course, implying that the lower column portions that got ejected laterally got ejected at higher velocity, are you not? The problem is, I don't believe anybody can see this due to the obstructed view caused by the expanding debris cloud. See
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc...ncrete.full.jpg
NOTE: To get the full impact of this picture, please click the link.
QUOTE
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.
The picture above speaks to a disintegrated core, and "pancakes" that more closely resemble flour. Not even waffles.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
The picture above speaks to a disintegrated core, and "pancakes" that more closely resemble flour. Not even waffles.
As I said, the place you see this "Nub" is where the mechanical levels are.
In the picture above, you see even more evidence of directed energy, with "nubs" that encompass most of the core cross section, and roughly a third of it's height, rising much more than the height of the previous "nub" I pointed out. It defies my imagination to blame these on mechanical floors, or even an exploding transformer.
Can you explain to me why a transformer would explode vertically, and furthermore not exhibit any "transformer pieces", but instead resemble smoke?
In my view, the photo above dramatically points to two different demolition modalities, much like our Finnish military expert friend claimed.
I note that I still have not abadoned my micro-nuke hypothesis (for the core), though I certainly can't prove it.
QUOTE
This is NOT an explosion. An explosion doesn't start out slow then progress.
I agree that an explosion doesn't start out slow and then progress. A demoltion involving some type of directed energy need not be due to high explosives. I remind you that the mysterious spire was "demolished" in place, as it were, none-explosively, and the end result was, essentially, smoke.
I have often argued that demoltion need not equal explosives....
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 04:00 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 4 2006, 03:45 PM)
These skyscrapers had minimal fire defences?
I find that very hard to believe?
Anyway, water was introduced and it had a cooling effect
and certainly retarded the fire. After the fuel had burned up
the fires were weak and cool as evidenced by the very dark
and black fire. There is no way around this. Invisible fires
are not likely to be weakening steel structures, People were
seen standing in the hole made by the plane. This is a documented
fact, whether you like it or not Arthur.
You are a COMPLETE MORON.
Do you not understand UPWIND side?
Fresh air was coming IN that hole she was standing next too.
The HEAT WAS GOING OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
Are you TOO STUPID to read the Friggin NIST REPORT or do you want to REMAIN this STUPID?
Arthur
Nonsense.
I find that very hard to believe?
Anyway, water was introduced and it had a cooling effect
and certainly retarded the fire. After the fuel had burned up
the fires were weak and cool as evidenced by the very dark
and black fire. There is no way around this. Invisible fires
are not likely to be weakening steel structures, People were
seen standing in the hole made by the plane. This is a documented
fact, whether you like it or not Arthur.
You are a COMPLETE MORON.
Do you not understand UPWIND side?
Fresh air was coming IN that hole she was standing next too.
The HEAT WAS GOING OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
Are you TOO STUPID to read the Friggin NIST REPORT or do you want to REMAIN this STUPID?
Arthur
Nonsense.
QUOTE (galdur+)
Since fires have never ever brought down steel high rises except
on Sept. 11th (according to the official conspiracy theory) it has
never been any concern at all. There has been no reevaluation
of skyscrapers after Sept. 11th which presumably means that
nobody takes such a threat seriously.
If you really believe that office fires can bring down massive sky-
scrapers then why don´t you call on the Government to issue an
all out alert regarding the safety of such buildings. It's a little late
after four years but isn´t it highly irresponsible to ignore this
supposed hazard?
No other steel high rises have been run into by large jets at high speed either.
The other steel high rises that have had fires were of the Post and Beam construction (much more massive than the tube within a tube design) or in the case of the Madrid fire, had concrete reinforced central support.
NIST did identify safety concerns.
The key point though is to avoid planes running into them in the first place. Which is why there are sky marshals and reinforced cockpit doors on all aircraft. If the hijackers can't get to the cockpit they can't repeat 9/11.
No planes running into buildings, no problem.
Arthur
on Sept. 11th (according to the official conspiracy theory) it has
never been any concern at all. There has been no reevaluation
of skyscrapers after Sept. 11th which presumably means that
nobody takes such a threat seriously.
If you really believe that office fires can bring down massive sky-
scrapers then why don´t you call on the Government to issue an
all out alert regarding the safety of such buildings. It's a little late
after four years but isn´t it highly irresponsible to ignore this
supposed hazard?
No other steel high rises have been run into by large jets at high speed either.
The other steel high rises that have had fires were of the Post and Beam construction (much more massive than the tube within a tube design) or in the case of the Madrid fire, had concrete reinforced central support.
NIST did identify safety concerns.
The key point though is to avoid planes running into them in the first place. Which is why there are sky marshals and reinforced cockpit doors on all aircraft. If the hijackers can't get to the cockpit they can't repeat 9/11.
No planes running into buildings, no problem.
Arthur
Great pic metamars.
Lucid reasoning as usual.
Thank you.
Lucid reasoning as usual.
Thank you.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 04:07 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+)
Since fires have never ever brought down steel high rises except
on Sept. 11th (according to the official conspiracy theory) it has
never been any concern at all. There has been no reevaluation
of skyscrapers after Sept. 11th which presumably means that
nobody takes such a threat seriously.
If you really believe that office fires can bring down massive sky-
scrapers then why don´t you call on the Government to issue an
all out alert regarding the safety of such buildings. It's a little late
after four years but isn´t it highly irresponsible to ignore this
supposed hazard?
No other steel high rises have been run into by large jets at high speed either.
The other steel high rises that have had fires were of the Post and Beam construction (much more massive than the tube within a tube design) or in the case of the Madrid fire, had concrete reinforced central support.
NIST did identify safety concerns.
The key point though is to avoid planes running into them in the first place. Which is why there are sky marshals and reinforced cockpit doors on all aircraft. If the hijackers can't get to the cockpit they can't repeat 9/11.
No planes running into buildings, no problem.
Arthur
No plane hit #7.
Still it was totally flattened.
on Sept. 11th (according to the official conspiracy theory) it has
never been any concern at all. There has been no reevaluation
of skyscrapers after Sept. 11th which presumably means that
nobody takes such a threat seriously.
If you really believe that office fires can bring down massive sky-
scrapers then why don´t you call on the Government to issue an
all out alert regarding the safety of such buildings. It's a little late
after four years but isn´t it highly irresponsible to ignore this
supposed hazard?
No other steel high rises have been run into by large jets at high speed either.
The other steel high rises that have had fires were of the Post and Beam construction (much more massive than the tube within a tube design) or in the case of the Madrid fire, had concrete reinforced central support.
NIST did identify safety concerns.
The key point though is to avoid planes running into them in the first place. Which is why there are sky marshals and reinforced cockpit doors on all aircraft. If the hijackers can't get to the cockpit they can't repeat 9/11.
No planes running into buildings, no problem.
Arthur
No plane hit #7.
Still it was totally flattened.
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 4 2006, 04:03 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 04:00 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 4 2006, 03:45 PM)
These skyscrapers had minimal fire defences?
I find that very hard to believe?
Anyway, water was introduced and it had a cooling effect
and certainly retarded the fire. After the fuel had burned up
the fires were weak and cool as evidenced by the very dark
and black fire. There is no way around this. Invisible fires
are not likely to be weakening steel structures, People were
seen standing in the hole made by the plane. This is a documented
fact, whether you like it or not Arthur.
You are a COMPLETE MORON.
Do you not understand UPWIND side?
Fresh air was coming IN that hole she was standing next too.
The HEAT WAS GOING OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
Are you TOO STUPID to read the Friggin NIST REPORT or do you want to REMAIN this STUPID?
Arthur
Nonsense.
The only NONSENSE is the BS you've been spouting.
Most of which is totally refuted by readily available published reports.
The problem is you BELIEVE your own BS.
Which makes you a MORON.
Arthur
I find that very hard to believe?
Anyway, water was introduced and it had a cooling effect
and certainly retarded the fire. After the fuel had burned up
the fires were weak and cool as evidenced by the very dark
and black fire. There is no way around this. Invisible fires
are not likely to be weakening steel structures, People were
seen standing in the hole made by the plane. This is a documented
fact, whether you like it or not Arthur.
You are a COMPLETE MORON.
Do you not understand UPWIND side?
Fresh air was coming IN that hole she was standing next too.
The HEAT WAS GOING OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
Are you TOO STUPID to read the Friggin NIST REPORT or do you want to REMAIN this STUPID?
Arthur
Nonsense.
The only NONSENSE is the BS you've been spouting.
Most of which is totally refuted by readily available published reports.
The problem is you BELIEVE your own BS.
Which makes you a MORON.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 04:10 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 4 2006, 04:03 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 04:00 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 4 2006, 03:45 PM)
These skyscrapers had minimal fire defences?
I find that very hard to believe?
Anyway, water was introduced and it had a cooling effect
and certainly retarded the fire. After the fuel had burned up
the fires were weak and cool as evidenced by the very dark
and black fire. There is no way around this. Invisible fires
are not likely to be weakening steel structures, People were
seen standing in the hole made by the plane. This is a documented
fact, whether you like it or not Arthur.
You are a COMPLETE MORON.
Do you not understand UPWIND side?
Fresh air was coming IN that hole she was standing next too.
The HEAT WAS GOING OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
Are you TOO STUPID to read the Friggin NIST REPORT or do you want to REMAIN this STUPID?
Arthur
Nonsense.
The only NONSENSE is the BS you've been spouting.
Most of which is totally refuted by readily available published reports.
The problem is you BELIEVE your own BS.
Which makes you a MORON.
Arthur
Nonsense.
I find that very hard to believe?
Anyway, water was introduced and it had a cooling effect
and certainly retarded the fire. After the fuel had burned up
the fires were weak and cool as evidenced by the very dark
and black fire. There is no way around this. Invisible fires
are not likely to be weakening steel structures, People were
seen standing in the hole made by the plane. This is a documented
fact, whether you like it or not Arthur.
You are a COMPLETE MORON.
Do you not understand UPWIND side?
Fresh air was coming IN that hole she was standing next too.
The HEAT WAS GOING OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
Are you TOO STUPID to read the Friggin NIST REPORT or do you want to REMAIN this STUPID?
Arthur
Nonsense.
The only NONSENSE is the BS you've been spouting.
Most of which is totally refuted by readily available published reports.
The problem is you BELIEVE your own BS.
Which makes you a MORON.
Arthur
Nonsense.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 03:31 PM)
The WTC had a tube within a tube design, the center core ended up acting like a huge chimney, funneling air to the fire, which was why the helo said it "was glowing red in the center" shortly before it fell.
That's an outright lie. The WTC towers were specifically designed to prevent chimney effect in case of fire.
Why do you lie so much, and why do you spend such an amount of time threatening to leave this "idiotic thread", yet going on with your disinformation attempts?
That's an outright lie. The WTC towers were specifically designed to prevent chimney effect in case of fire.
Why do you lie so much, and why do you spend such an amount of time threatening to leave this "idiotic thread", yet going on with your disinformation attempts?
Stop this nonsense and get to the Pentagon.
You need to construct a fairytale explaining how
the plane flew inches above the ground into the Pentagon
with engines extending five feet under it and
they didn´t leave the slightest mark on the lawn.
You need to construct a fairytale explaining how
the plane flew inches above the ground into the Pentagon
with engines extending five feet under it and
they didn´t leave the slightest mark on the lawn.
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 4 2006, 04:10 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 04:07 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+)
Since fires have never ever brought down steel high rises except
on Sept. 11th (according to the official conspiracy theory) it has
never been any concern at all. There has been no reevaluation
of skyscrapers after Sept. 11th which presumably means that
nobody takes such a threat seriously.
If you really believe that office fires can bring down massive sky-
scrapers then why don´t you call on the Government to issue an
all out alert regarding the safety of such buildings. It's a little late
after four years but isn´t it highly irresponsible to ignore this
supposed hazard?
No other steel high rises have been run into by large jets at high speed either.
The other steel high rises that have had fires were of the Post and Beam construction (much more massive than the tube within a tube design) or in the case of the Madrid fire, had concrete reinforced central support.
NIST did identify safety concerns.
The key point though is to avoid planes running into them in the first place. Which is why there are sky marshals and reinforced cockpit doors on all aircraft. If the hijackers can't get to the cockpit they can't repeat 9/11.
No planes running into buildings, no problem.
Arthur
No plane hit #7.
Still it was totally flattened.
I'm holding off on WTC 7 commentary until NIST finishes its report.
Supposedly they are going to analyse why it collapsed.
However, even now we know it is not the same as the other fires in Post and Beam high rises. Unlike them, it WAS hit by the falling WTC 1 tower and suffered massive damage. Unlike them it did have a massive pressurized fuel tank in the basement leading up to generators on the 5th floor. Unlike them the fires were massive and not fought because of the damage to the building (not to mention the situation on the ground at the time, what with many hundreds of firefighters already dead). So when you don't fight a fire, as in the Madrid fire, the building will eventually collapse. Again, unlike Madrid, WTC 7 had no reinforced concrete core, but its design was quite different from WTC 1 & 2 as well.
Arthur
on Sept. 11th (according to the official conspiracy theory) it has
never been any concern at all. There has been no reevaluation
of skyscrapers after Sept. 11th which presumably means that
nobody takes such a threat seriously.
If you really believe that office fires can bring down massive sky-
scrapers then why don´t you call on the Government to issue an
all out alert regarding the safety of such buildings. It's a little late
after four years but isn´t it highly irresponsible to ignore this
supposed hazard?
No other steel high rises have been run into by large jets at high speed either.
The other steel high rises that have had fires were of the Post and Beam construction (much more massive than the tube within a tube design) or in the case of the Madrid fire, had concrete reinforced central support.
NIST did identify safety concerns.
The key point though is to avoid planes running into them in the first place. Which is why there are sky marshals and reinforced cockpit doors on all aircraft. If the hijackers can't get to the cockpit they can't repeat 9/11.
No planes running into buildings, no problem.
Arthur
No plane hit #7.
Still it was totally flattened.
I'm holding off on WTC 7 commentary until NIST finishes its report.
Supposedly they are going to analyse why it collapsed.
However, even now we know it is not the same as the other fires in Post and Beam high rises. Unlike them, it WAS hit by the falling WTC 1 tower and suffered massive damage. Unlike them it did have a massive pressurized fuel tank in the basement leading up to generators on the 5th floor. Unlike them the fires were massive and not fought because of the damage to the building (not to mention the situation on the ground at the time, what with many hundreds of firefighters already dead). So when you don't fight a fire, as in the Madrid fire, the building will eventually collapse. Again, unlike Madrid, WTC 7 had no reinforced concrete core, but its design was quite different from WTC 1 & 2 as well.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 4 2006, 04:16 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 03:31 PM)
The WTC had a tube within a tube design, the center core ended up acting like a huge chimney, funneling air to the fire, which was why the helo said it "was glowing red in the center" shortly before it fell.
That's an outright lie. The WTC towers were specifically designed to prevent chimney effect in case of fire.
Why do you lie so much, and why do you spend such an amount of time threatening to leave this "idiotic thread", yet going on with your disinformation attempts?
Nice.
That's an outright lie. The WTC towers were specifically designed to prevent chimney effect in case of fire.
Why do you lie so much, and why do you spend such an amount of time threatening to leave this "idiotic thread", yet going on with your disinformation attempts?
Nice.
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 4 2006, 04:16 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 03:31 PM)
The WTC had a tube within a tube design, the center core ended up acting like a huge chimney, funneling air to the fire, which was why the helo said it "was glowing red in the center" shortly before it fell.
That's an outright lie. The WTC towers were specifically designed to prevent chimney effect in case of fire.
Why do you lie so much, and why do you spend such an amount of time threatening to leave this "idiotic thread", yet going on with your disinformation attempts?
I agree, but the design was based on a fire breaking out on the upper floors.
In this case the plane impacted the upper floors, blew jet fuel down the elevator shafts where it detonated, blowing out the 3" thik lobby windows AND the fire doors, thus eliminating those design elements that were to prevent it acting as a chimney.
Arthur
In this case the plane impacted the upper floors, blew jet fuel down the elevator shafts where it detonated, blowing out the 3" thik lobby windows AND the fire doors, thus eliminating those design elements that were to prevent it acting as a chimney.
Where is your source? Or are you continuing to type out of your sh*tstained a-s-s? You should learn to give up, you "Angel lust" blower. You have been cornered, beaten, and tormented in this thread...seriously. Yet you come back for more. Can't get enough I see. Don't blame you though, as you seem to have an IQ less than the number of truthful facts you have actually attempted to share in this entire discussion.
As you can see, those who make you look stupid (and there seems to be PLENTY here), never have and never will stop. As you persist, so will they. You will only make yourself look more stupid, and the more lies you spew, the more they will relentlessly rip apart your pre-meditated recyclable unsubstantiated fabrications.
_________________________________________________________________
In this case the plane impacted the upper floors, blew jet fuel down the elevator shafts where it detonated, blowing out the 3" thik lobby windows AND the fire doors, thus eliminating those design elements that were to prevent it acting as a chimney.
Arthur
Was this the reason for the bombs in the lobby and basement levels? Were they trying to create a draft to increase the fires higher up in the building? I have often wondered why it was necessary for bombs to go off in the lower levels before the demolition. Arthur can you check with your sources?
Steel is a relatively poor conductor of heat, which is why it makes good FRYING PANS. You know the classic large frying pan used to make Southern Style Fried Chicken. You cook the chicken at 350 deg, about an hour, and you know what, the entire time you can hold the STEEL handle, just several inches from the 350 deg oil.
Watch a picture of a blacksmith some time.
That section he heats up to glowing will STAY glowing for some time, but the glow won't progress down the piece. It will be held, usually by steel pliers a foot or so away, but with BARE hands while he pounds on the hot end for several minutes, still it doesn't get too hot to hold.
So even if the core got red hot (they didn't) it STILL wouldn't have conducted the heat to the other 200,000 lbs of steel. This continued reference to the total amount of steel in the building acting as a heat sink is DISINFORMATION, since the heat only affected a SMALL percent of the steel.
Arthur
Arthur ,
The reason he can hold the metal with the tongs is the surface area between the tongs and piece of metal is very small. The core columns continue from the ground to the top.
That's an outright lie. The WTC towers were specifically designed to prevent chimney effect in case of fire.
Why do you lie so much, and why do you spend such an amount of time threatening to leave this "idiotic thread", yet going on with your disinformation attempts?
I agree, but the design was based on a fire breaking out on the upper floors.
In this case the plane impacted the upper floors, blew jet fuel down the elevator shafts where it detonated, blowing out the 3" thik lobby windows AND the fire doors, thus eliminating those design elements that were to prevent it acting as a chimney.
Arthur
The mainstream media -
911 - Too Hot To Handle?
By Douglas Herman
12-8-5
"If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us." -- George HW Bush
A couple weeks ago, just out of curiosity and in the interest of fairness, I decide to email a hundred mainstream media news editors from newspapers large and small. I wanted to get their own remarks to four very innocuous but pertinent questions regarding THE EVENT that spawned two foreign wars based on lies, massive government spending, enormous corruption and cronyism, vote fraud, crimes against the Geneva Convention and destruction of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not to mention the rather minor (by comparison) Valerie Plame affair.
That event, of course, was the 911 attacks that opened the Pandora's box to ALL the felonies that followed.
So I wrote polite emails to nearly one hundred news editors around America. I opened with the query: "Dear Editors, Do Joseph Pulitzer's words still apply today?" Then I added Pulitzer's quote (below), just in case some of the news editors may have forgotten who JP was and what he tried to do.
"Iwill always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty." -- Joseph Pulitzer, April 10, 1907
My fourth question to the editors, particularly, may have struck a raw nerve. "If you personally became suspicious that 911 was possibly an inside job--by a rogue element in the government--would you suppress the story rather than inform, and thus distress, your readers?"
I sent along a few links to well-researched 911 news stories, topics we on the Internet are familiar with and can openly discuss. Nothing too shocking or far-fetched, but simply well researched reports of discrepancies that should awaken the skeptical instincts of any good editor. Two 911 Planes Were Never Deregistered, for example, and BYU Discredits Prof Jones For 911 WTC Paper! Like I said, nothing that we on the Internet can't handle.
I received ONE (1) response.
Full article -http://www.rense.com/general69/hot.htm
911 - Too Hot To Handle?
By Douglas Herman
12-8-5
"If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us." -- George HW Bush
A couple weeks ago, just out of curiosity and in the interest of fairness, I decide to email a hundred mainstream media news editors from newspapers large and small. I wanted to get their own remarks to four very innocuous but pertinent questions regarding THE EVENT that spawned two foreign wars based on lies, massive government spending, enormous corruption and cronyism, vote fraud, crimes against the Geneva Convention and destruction of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not to mention the rather minor (by comparison) Valerie Plame affair.
That event, of course, was the 911 attacks that opened the Pandora's box to ALL the felonies that followed.
So I wrote polite emails to nearly one hundred news editors around America. I opened with the query: "Dear Editors, Do Joseph Pulitzer's words still apply today?" Then I added Pulitzer's quote (below), just in case some of the news editors may have forgotten who JP was and what he tried to do.
"Iwill always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty." -- Joseph Pulitzer, April 10, 1907
My fourth question to the editors, particularly, may have struck a raw nerve. "If you personally became suspicious that 911 was possibly an inside job--by a rogue element in the government--would you suppress the story rather than inform, and thus distress, your readers?"
I sent along a few links to well-researched 911 news stories, topics we on the Internet are familiar with and can openly discuss. Nothing too shocking or far-fetched, but simply well researched reports of discrepancies that should awaken the skeptical instincts of any good editor. Two 911 Planes Were Never Deregistered, for example, and BYU Discredits Prof Jones For 911 WTC Paper! Like I said, nothing that we on the Internet can't handle.
I received ONE (1) response.
Full article -http://www.rense.com/general69/hot.htm
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 04:24 PM)
I agree, but the design was based on a fire breaking out on the upper floors.
Which is what happened on 9/11.
That's a fairy tale.
The elevator shafts did not go all the way to the bottom of the building as a tube. That's partly what the "no chimney effect" design was about. Only 1 elevator shaft was going from top to bottom.
Claiming that the (smart?) jetfuel travelled 1,000 ft down that single elevator shaft in order to detonate in the lobby is a bit ridiculous.
Claiming that the same fuel that didn't break all upper floors windows in the original giant fireball, somehow blew out the 3" thik (sic) lobby windows 1,000 ft away borders on lunacy.
You should be able to do better than that, with your 4 years experience at spreading disinformation on Internet fora.
Which is what happened on 9/11.
QUOTE
In this case the plane impacted the upper floors, blew jet fuel down the elevator shafts where it detonated, blowing out the 3" thik lobby windows AND the fire doors, thus eliminating those design elements that were to prevent it acting as a chimney.
Arthur
Arthur
That's a fairy tale.
The elevator shafts did not go all the way to the bottom of the building as a tube. That's partly what the "no chimney effect" design was about. Only 1 elevator shaft was going from top to bottom.
Claiming that the (smart?) jetfuel travelled 1,000 ft down that single elevator shaft in order to detonate in the lobby is a bit ridiculous.
Claiming that the same fuel that didn't break all upper floors windows in the original giant fireball, somehow blew out the 3" thik (sic) lobby windows 1,000 ft away borders on lunacy.
You should be able to do better than that, with your 4 years experience at spreading disinformation on Internet fora.
You are wrong.
This has been covered IN THIS THREAD.
Catch up or stay behind.
Your choice.
I will no longer debate issues which have previously been covered UNLESS NEW INFORMATION is brought to the discussion and you have brought NO NEW INFO.
Arthur
This has been covered IN THIS THREAD.
Catch up or stay behind.
Your choice.
I will no longer debate issues which have previously been covered UNLESS NEW INFORMATION is brought to the discussion and you have brought NO NEW INFO.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette -- the highly obvious disinformation liar who doesn't know when to give up nor has any awareness of the fact that the MAJORITY of the people in this site and perhaps the entire country can see right through his repetitive lies -- wrote+)
The WTC had a tube within a tube design, the center core ended up acting like a huge chimney, funneling air to the fire, which was why the helo said it "was glowing red in the center" shortly before it fell wrote...
Moron. Do you have a legitimate source to back up your pathetic repetitive useless and increasingly baseless lies? If so, you should learn to post your sources. If you don't have any sources, shut you're *** trap, as your arguments will only come across as pure conjecture and continue to appear as painfully obvious disinformation. You are far more obvious than you realize.
Funny how you have been persistent in this thread for so long even though your arguments have been routinely ripped to shreads. If people actually tracked your messages in this thread, they would discover a clear and noticeable pattern amongst your posts; and that is, you often recycle your messages. When your earlier posts have been refuted, you make up new bullsh!t and then after a while, once your recent posts get tanked as well, you revert back to your long and forgotten prior arguements (hoping that everyone has forgotten about them). This is your strategy and it is a common tactic amongst disinformation losers throughout the internet. This is in fact, your way of being able to persist in these types of debates for so long; you recycle your arguements.
_________________________________________________________________
Moron. Do you have a legitimate source to back up your pathetic repetitive useless and increasingly baseless lies? If so, you should learn to post your sources. If you don't have any sources, shut you're *** trap, as your arguments will only come across as pure conjecture and continue to appear as painfully obvious disinformation. You are far more obvious than you realize.
Funny how you have been persistent in this thread for so long even though your arguments have been routinely ripped to shreads. If people actually tracked your messages in this thread, they would discover a clear and noticeable pattern amongst your posts; and that is, you often recycle your messages. When your earlier posts have been refuted, you make up new bullsh!t and then after a while, once your recent posts get tanked as well, you revert back to your long and forgotten prior arguements (hoping that everyone has forgotten about them). This is your strategy and it is a common tactic amongst disinformation losers throughout the internet. This is in fact, your way of being able to persist in these types of debates for so long; you recycle your arguements.
_________________________________________________________________
See my previous post.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 05:04 PM)
You are wrong.
This has been covered IN THIS THREAD.
Catch up or stay behind.
Your choice.
I will no longer debate issues which have previously been covered UNLESS NEW INFORMATION is brought to the discussion and you have brought NO NEW INFO.
Arthur
You can capitalize all that you like, next you'll be calling me a moron, yet it doesn't make your lies go away. Plus, your lies cannot be called "covering" the subject, quite the contrary. Your obvious purpose is to muddy the water as much as you can.
I agree that exposing your disinformation is no new info. New info would be that you'd stop lying through your teeth.
I maintain that the magic jetfuel travelling 1,000 ft down a single elevator shaft, in order to detonate in the lobby, is a fairy tale.
This has been covered IN THIS THREAD.
Catch up or stay behind.
Your choice.
I will no longer debate issues which have previously been covered UNLESS NEW INFORMATION is brought to the discussion and you have brought NO NEW INFO.
Arthur
You can capitalize all that you like, next you'll be calling me a moron, yet it doesn't make your lies go away. Plus, your lies cannot be called "covering" the subject, quite the contrary. Your obvious purpose is to muddy the water as much as you can.
I agree that exposing your disinformation is no new info. New info would be that you'd stop lying through your teeth.
I maintain that the magic jetfuel travelling 1,000 ft down a single elevator shaft, in order to detonate in the lobby, is a fairy tale.
QUOTE ( adoucette -- the hypocritical moron who can't stop lying+ because he is a coward who either works for the government, kisses the ground that those high level Hegelian Dialectic practitioners piss on, a self-righteous independent wannabe disinformation rookie, or a cross dressing tranny who loves to service the Bohemian Grove Faggot Elites -- wrote)
In this case the plane impacted the upper floors, blew jet fuel down the elevator shafts where it detonated, blowing out the 3" thik lobby windows AND the fire doors, thus eliminating those design elements that were to prevent it acting as a chimney.
Where is your source? Or are you continuing to type out of your sh*tstained a-s-s? You should learn to give up, you "Angel lust" blower. You have been cornered, beaten, and tormented in this thread...seriously. Yet you come back for more. Can't get enough I see. Don't blame you though, as you seem to have an IQ less than the number of truthful facts you have actually attempted to share in this entire discussion.
As you can see, those who make you look stupid (and there seems to be PLENTY here), never have and never will stop. As you persist, so will they. You will only make yourself look more stupid, and the more lies you spew, the more they will relentlessly rip apart your pre-meditated recyclable unsubstantiated fabrications.
_________________________________________________________________
Guest_yesitdid
I don't care if you attack Russel, but you used a FAKE website company, IE; 911 Strike, which is a known propaganda group, they are notorious for lying their fanny's off and spreading false information. So using their site as your basis to prove a point is ridiculous and dis-ingenuous
I don't care if you attack Russel, but you used a FAKE website company, IE; 911 Strike, which is a known propaganda group, they are notorious for lying their fanny's off and spreading false information. So using their site as your basis to prove a point is ridiculous and dis-ingenuous
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 04:24 PM)
In this case the plane impacted the upper floors, blew jet fuel down the elevator shafts where it detonated, blowing out the 3" thik lobby windows AND the fire doors, thus eliminating those design elements that were to prevent it acting as a chimney.
Arthur
Was this the reason for the bombs in the lobby and basement levels? Were they trying to create a draft to increase the fires higher up in the building? I have often wondered why it was necessary for bombs to go off in the lower levels before the demolition. Arthur can you check with your sources?
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 4 2006, 05:57 PM)
Guest_yesitdid
I don't care if you attack Russel, but you used a FAKE website company, IE; 911 Strike, which is a known propaganda group, they are notorious for lying their fanny's off and spreading false information. So using their site as your basis to prove a point is ridiculous and dis-ingenuous
I did? Where?
You might like to make sure of who posts what before going on the attack steve.
I have never attacked Russell or Jones in any way involving their religion. They don't bring it up so I don't.
You on the other hand, insert Bible quotes as if anything written by men thousands of years ago would have any relevence to 9/11/2001.
I don't care if you attack Russel, but you used a FAKE website company, IE; 911 Strike, which is a known propaganda group, they are notorious for lying their fanny's off and spreading false information. So using their site as your basis to prove a point is ridiculous and dis-ingenuous
I did? Where?
You might like to make sure of who posts what before going on the attack steve.
I have never attacked Russell or Jones in any way involving their religion. They don't bring it up so I don't.
You on the other hand, insert Bible quotes as if anything written by men thousands of years ago would have any relevence to 9/11/2001.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 03:31 PM)
Steel is a relatively poor conductor of heat, which is why it makes good FRYING PANS. You know the classic large frying pan used to make Southern Style Fried Chicken. You cook the chicken at 350 deg, about an hour, and you know what, the entire time you can hold the STEEL handle, just several inches from the 350 deg oil.
Watch a picture of a blacksmith some time.
That section he heats up to glowing will STAY glowing for some time, but the glow won't progress down the piece. It will be held, usually by steel pliers a foot or so away, but with BARE hands while he pounds on the hot end for several minutes, still it doesn't get too hot to hold.
So even if the core got red hot (they didn't) it STILL wouldn't have conducted the heat to the other 200,000 lbs of steel. This continued reference to the total amount of steel in the building acting as a heat sink is DISINFORMATION, since the heat only affected a SMALL percent of the steel.
Arthur
Arthur ,
The reason he can hold the metal with the tongs is the surface area between the tongs and piece of metal is very small. The core columns continue from the ground to the top.
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 4 2006, 03:48 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 4 2006, 03:37 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 4 2006, 03:26 PM)
Sprinkler systems with no water?
What sort of nonsense is this?
If a plane rips through the building and cuts the supply pipes to the sprinkler system then there the water drains away through the break, no pressure beyond that point. If the supply is a roof tank then it soon drains away, if the supply is from below then it now has no way to get to the fire.
AFAIK, there are no reports of any sprinkler systems spraying on the affected floors.
Well, there are no reports of heat weakening steel
either. There are reports of people being seen standing
around where steel was supposed to be weakening or
melting though.
There are speculations that heat weakened the steel to the point
that the towers were flattened. That is all.
I find it extremely hard to believe that the sprinklers did not work.
There is no evidence that they didn't. They were there and are
designed to work in fires. This is known and no speculation.
Give me a break!
Working sprinklers should be fairly obvious to anyone in a position to see them.
Weakening steel beams would be evidenced solely by creep of the columns, and by sounds of the building shifting(now what might that sound like??).
It is not like anyone can look at a column, from hundreds of feet away, through smoke and fire and debris and say, "see that steel is weakening".
Now I would agree that there may have been no one alive that could have been in a position to witness sprinklers coming on on the most affected floors. However, in the case of WTC 2 there were helicopters in the area and we know they were looking into the buildings. No reports of sprinklers working from them. The NYPD chopper does report that the interior of the building is glowing red from the fire.
Again it may not have been possible for an outside observer to get close enough to actually witness sprinklers due to smoke and fire obscuring the view.
The NIST photos clearly show that the impacts had collapsed floor pans. The sprinklers are attached to said floor pans so it is quite obvious that the sprinkler systems would be compromised at that point at the very least. A break in the pipes would lower pressure and drain water out at the point of the break rather than where the fire is. Spray a gallon of water on a small bonfire and you will reduce the fire substantially. Pour it in a stream into the center of the fire and you will do little to that fire.
Water was seen flowing down the stairwells. This is evidence that water supply pipes in the core had been severed. This would severely lower water pressure. No pressure, no active fire protection.
I do not understand how you can cling to a notion that the sprinkler system would still be in fine working order after the impact and explosion.
However.... remember that (according to his own 'ill-informed versions' of events which he saw on MSM) HE, Himself said that his 'theory' would ONLY BE Plausible IF the entire upper portion REMAINED INTACT (like a solid body - a 'pile-driving' piston...)
and we KNOW that did NOT happen.
It is only required for the top section to remain intact , or largely intact for a few floors in the B-Z analysis.
However, I might point out that at least one part of steve1957's videos makes a claim that requires that the upper section impact the ground largely intact.
Perhaps, since you two are supposedly on the same side, you might want to reach a consensus on this point.
Your statement has big time logic problems....
Logic problem 1:
- The official government story (which you clearly support) claims that the WTC towers were brought down by the fires caused by the planes, and that the severity of the plane impacts also contributed to the structural collapses. Thomas Eagar (MIT professor) who also supports the official story (like you) explains that in order for a steel building to collapse within its own footprint is when all the major steel components were weakened and melted equally by the fires - Click Link. Then how do you explain your statement "since the heat only affected a SMALL percent of the steel."?
Duh, he never says this.
He talks about all the steel ON A FLOOR being heated, not the whole building.
He also says that they HAD to fall straight down because there was no force to make it do anything BUT fall straight down.
Arthur
In this case the plane impacted the upper floors, blew jet fuel down the elevator shafts where it detonated, blowing out the 3" thik lobby windows AND the fire doors, thus eliminating those design elements that were to prevent it acting as a chimney.
Arthur
Was this the reason for the bombs in the lobby and basement levels? Were they trying to create a draft to increase the fires higher up in the building? I have often wondered why it was necessary for bombs to go off in the lower levels before the demolition. Arthur can you check with your sources?
How about this question instead. How much jet fuel needs to travel down the one continues elevator shaft to cause the 3” lobby windows to break? Was the Lobby elevator door programmed to open for an explosion ?
What sort of nonsense is this?
If a plane rips through the building and cuts the supply pipes to the sprinkler system then there the water drains away through the break, no pressure beyond that point. If the supply is a roof tank then it soon drains away, if the supply is from below then it now has no way to get to the fire.
AFAIK, there are no reports of any sprinkler systems spraying on the affected floors.
Well, there are no reports of heat weakening steel
either. There are reports of people being seen standing
around where steel was supposed to be weakening or
melting though.
There are speculations that heat weakened the steel to the point
that the towers were flattened. That is all.
I find it extremely hard to believe that the sprinklers did not work.
There is no evidence that they didn't. They were there and are
designed to work in fires. This is known and no speculation.
Give me a break!
Working sprinklers should be fairly obvious to anyone in a position to see them.
Weakening steel beams would be evidenced solely by creep of the columns, and by sounds of the building shifting(now what might that sound like??).
It is not like anyone can look at a column, from hundreds of feet away, through smoke and fire and debris and say, "see that steel is weakening".
Now I would agree that there may have been no one alive that could have been in a position to witness sprinklers coming on on the most affected floors. However, in the case of WTC 2 there were helicopters in the area and we know they were looking into the buildings. No reports of sprinklers working from them. The NYPD chopper does report that the interior of the building is glowing red from the fire.
Again it may not have been possible for an outside observer to get close enough to actually witness sprinklers due to smoke and fire obscuring the view.
The NIST photos clearly show that the impacts had collapsed floor pans. The sprinklers are attached to said floor pans so it is quite obvious that the sprinkler systems would be compromised at that point at the very least. A break in the pipes would lower pressure and drain water out at the point of the break rather than where the fire is. Spray a gallon of water on a small bonfire and you will reduce the fire substantially. Pour it in a stream into the center of the fire and you will do little to that fire.
Water was seen flowing down the stairwells. This is evidence that water supply pipes in the core had been severed. This would severely lower water pressure. No pressure, no active fire protection.
I do not understand how you can cling to a notion that the sprinkler system would still be in fine working order after the impact and explosion.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 4 2006, 07:23 AM)
However.... remember that (according to his own 'ill-informed versions' of events which he saw on MSM) HE, Himself said that his 'theory' would ONLY BE Plausible IF the entire upper portion REMAINED INTACT (like a solid body - a 'pile-driving' piston...)
and we KNOW that did NOT happen.
It is only required for the top section to remain intact , or largely intact for a few floors in the B-Z analysis.
However, I might point out that at least one part of steve1957's videos makes a claim that requires that the upper section impact the ground largely intact.
Perhaps, since you two are supposedly on the same side, you might want to reach a consensus on this point.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 4 2006, 05:25 AM)
Well, enough fun for tonight ... I realize that some here are on 24/7 duty...
but that's not me
Yid...
Later...
Oh, ya just gotta love it.
Foxx gets caught in a paranoid delusion(or was it simply a lie, let the reader decide) and shoots back with the equivalent of a schoolyard , "oh, yeah!".
but that's not me
Yid...
Later...
Oh, ya just gotta love it.
Foxx gets caught in a paranoid delusion(or was it simply a lie, let the reader decide) and shoots back with the equivalent of a schoolyard , "oh, yeah!".
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 4 2006, 07:18 PM)
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Common sense,
You do realize the failure mechanism is different between this paper and NIST. So are you implying that NIST is wrong?
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Common sense,
You do realize the failure mechanism is different between this paper and NIST. So are you implying that NIST is wrong?
QUOTE (adoucette+)
That section he heats up to glowing will STAY glowing for some time, but the glow won't progress down the piece. It will be held, usually by steel pliers a foot or so away, but with BARE hands while he pounds on the hot end for several minutes, still it doesn't get too hot to hold.
So even if the core got red hot (they didn't) it STILL wouldn't have conducted the heat to the other 200,000 lbs of steel. This continued reference to the total amount of steel in the building acting as a heat sink is DISINFORMATION, since the heat only affected a SMALL percent of the steel.
Your statement has big time logic problems....
Logic problem 1:
- The official government story (which you clearly support) claims that the WTC towers were brought down by the fires caused by the planes, and that the severity of the plane impacts also contributed to the structural collapses. Thomas Eagar (MIT professor) who also supports the official story (like you) explains that in order for a steel building to collapse within its own footprint is when all the major steel components were weakened and melted equally by the fires - Click Link. Then how do you explain your statement "since the heat only affected a SMALL percent of the steel."?
It's bad enough that you support the official story, but it's even worse that you inadvertently contradict its warped logic with even more disinformation. That is the problem with lying too much.... you tend to create numerous holes in your arguements and this results in your inability to consistently defend the government story. In order to defend a lie, you must lie yourself. This creates major logic problems in your statements.
Logic problem 2:
- The official story says that the fires and impacts of the planes caused the WTC towers to collapse within their own footprints. Can you explain the government's logic as it applies to WTC 7, which was not hit by any plane whatsoever, yet also collapsed within its own footprint?
Logic problem 3:
- The WTC 7 building was a CIA operations building. CIA buildings are not civilian buildings. This means that WTC 7 is much more durable than most buildings. It even had a bunker for Rudy Giuliani. How come it collapsed within its own footprint due to relatively weak fires (compared to the fires in the Madrid Incident --> you know...the skyscraper that burned for more than 24 HOURS on Feb.14, 2005)?
Answer this.....
- Is it only coincidence that all the buildings that collapsed belonged to Larry Silverstein? Any adjacent building that wasn't a property of Larry Silverstein did not collapse even though some may have caught fire (fires at the same weak intensity as those apparent in WTC 7).
Can you explain the demolitions squibs in this WTC 7 collapse video?
- http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibview.mpg
Here is a clear shot of the demolitions squibs.....
So even if the core got red hot (they didn't) it STILL wouldn't have conducted the heat to the other 200,000 lbs of steel. This continued reference to the total amount of steel in the building acting as a heat sink is DISINFORMATION, since the heat only affected a SMALL percent of the steel.
Your statement has big time logic problems....
Logic problem 1:
- The official government story (which you clearly support) claims that the WTC towers were brought down by the fires caused by the planes, and that the severity of the plane impacts also contributed to the structural collapses. Thomas Eagar (MIT professor) who also supports the official story (like you) explains that in order for a steel building to collapse within its own footprint is when all the major steel components were weakened and melted equally by the fires - Click Link. Then how do you explain your statement "since the heat only affected a SMALL percent of the steel."?
It's bad enough that you support the official story, but it's even worse that you inadvertently contradict its warped logic with even more disinformation. That is the problem with lying too much.... you tend to create numerous holes in your arguements and this results in your inability to consistently defend the government story. In order to defend a lie, you must lie yourself. This creates major logic problems in your statements.
Logic problem 2:
- The official story says that the fires and impacts of the planes caused the WTC towers to collapse within their own footprints. Can you explain the government's logic as it applies to WTC 7, which was not hit by any plane whatsoever, yet also collapsed within its own footprint?
Logic problem 3:
- The WTC 7 building was a CIA operations building. CIA buildings are not civilian buildings. This means that WTC 7 is much more durable than most buildings. It even had a bunker for Rudy Giuliani. How come it collapsed within its own footprint due to relatively weak fires (compared to the fires in the Madrid Incident --> you know...the skyscraper that burned for more than 24 HOURS on Feb.14, 2005)?
Answer this.....
- Is it only coincidence that all the buildings that collapsed belonged to Larry Silverstein? Any adjacent building that wasn't a property of Larry Silverstein did not collapse even though some may have caught fire (fires at the same weak intensity as those apparent in WTC 7).
Can you explain the demolitions squibs in this WTC 7 collapse video?
- http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibview.mpg
Here is a clear shot of the demolitions squibs.....
Peer acceptance of Professor Jones paper and need for international independent inquiry = 100%
It follows that these 60 peers accepted Professor Jones' criticism of Bazant & Zhou:
--10. I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College).
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
It follows that these 60 peers accepted Professor Jones' criticism of Bazant & Zhou:
--10. I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College).
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
It's obvious that all the liars on this board who support the "MAGICIAN IN THE CAVE, WHO SUSPENDED THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ON 9/11" conspiracy theory can't figure out why they would install sprinkler systems in the buildings, when the steel structure was never in a threat due to fires.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, Why would they even bother to put sprinkler systems in?
Now the intelligent people on this board who understand the laws of physics and gravity don't just pick up and change on days that are convenient to support their myths, also understand the sprinkler systems serve another purpose.
Yes, reasonable people understand that while a terrible fire COULD NEVER BRING DOWN A STEEL HIGH RISE, it could however do a lot of damage.
You see the Madrid fire, while many times more damaging than the WTC fires didn't even come close to making the building collapse, however IT STILL DID A LOT OF OTHER DAMAGE.
Maybe, just maybe they install sprinkler systems (not to protect the steel framing), but to help save peoples lives, not to mention all the interior furniture and other items, which cost a lot to repair.
You see how totally corrupt the minds have deteriorated amongst all those LIARS, who continue to support the fairy tale. What a sad, sad state of mind these poor excuses of human beings have sink to.
I have not seen ANY LEGITIMATE, HONEST, SINCERE question or response posted from the fairy tale conspiracy wackos who support the magician in the cave.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, Why would they even bother to put sprinkler systems in?
Now the intelligent people on this board who understand the laws of physics and gravity don't just pick up and change on days that are convenient to support their myths, also understand the sprinkler systems serve another purpose.
Yes, reasonable people understand that while a terrible fire COULD NEVER BRING DOWN A STEEL HIGH RISE, it could however do a lot of damage.
You see the Madrid fire, while many times more damaging than the WTC fires didn't even come close to making the building collapse, however IT STILL DID A LOT OF OTHER DAMAGE.
Maybe, just maybe they install sprinkler systems (not to protect the steel framing), but to help save peoples lives, not to mention all the interior furniture and other items, which cost a lot to repair.
You see how totally corrupt the minds have deteriorated amongst all those LIARS, who continue to support the fairy tale. What a sad, sad state of mind these poor excuses of human beings have sink to.
I have not seen ANY LEGITIMATE, HONEST, SINCERE question or response posted from the fairy tale conspiracy wackos who support the magician in the cave.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 4 2006, 06:15 PM)
Arthur ,
The reason he can hold the metal with the tongs is the surface area between the tongs and piece of metal is very small. The core columns continue from the ground to the top.
Ok,
Thermal Conductivity - common metals
In Btu/hr per foot per deg F
Copper - 231 to 388
Aluminum - 136 to 220
Cast Iron - 46
Steel - 26 to 37
Stainless Steel 8
Which is why you have to insulate Steel, it absorbs heat faster than it conducts it away.
Eventually it would have conducted the heat through the structure, but the number of BTUs per hour it will transmit per foot is relatively low compared to other metals.
Arthur
The reason he can hold the metal with the tongs is the surface area between the tongs and piece of metal is very small. The core columns continue from the ground to the top.
Ok,
Thermal Conductivity - common metals
In Btu/hr per foot per deg F
Copper - 231 to 388
Aluminum - 136 to 220
Cast Iron - 46
Steel - 26 to 37
Stainless Steel 8
Which is why you have to insulate Steel, it absorbs heat faster than it conducts it away.
Eventually it would have conducted the heat through the structure, but the number of BTUs per hour it will transmit per foot is relatively low compared to other metals.
Arthur
QUOTE (bolt+Jan 4 2006, 08:07 PM)
Your statement has big time logic problems....
Logic problem 1:
- The official government story (which you clearly support) claims that the WTC towers were brought down by the fires caused by the planes, and that the severity of the plane impacts also contributed to the structural collapses. Thomas Eagar (MIT professor) who also supports the official story (like you) explains that in order for a steel building to collapse within its own footprint is when all the major steel components were weakened and melted equally by the fires - Click Link. Then how do you explain your statement "since the heat only affected a SMALL percent of the steel."?
Duh, he never says this.
He talks about all the steel ON A FLOOR being heated, not the whole building.
He also says that they HAD to fall straight down because there was no force to make it do anything BUT fall straight down.
Arthur
We get this below From Reality Check -
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]....
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....
---------
Can someone post a picture of the central core, the one Reality Check tells us was - "merely a VULNERABLE lacework 'inner-tube' of not-properly/sufficiently cross-braced steel elements..."
Never in the history of drivel has so much been dished up to so many by so few.
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]....
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....
---------
Can someone post a picture of the central core, the one Reality Check tells us was - "merely a VULNERABLE lacework 'inner-tube' of not-properly/sufficiently cross-braced steel elements..."
Never in the history of drivel has so much been dished up to so many by so few.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 4 2006, 08:12 PM)
Peer acceptance of Professor Jones paper and need for international independent inquiry = 100%
It follows that these 60 peers accepted Professor Jones' criticism of Bazant & Zhou:
--10. I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College).
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
ATTENDENCE at a seminar does not IMPLY agreement with the seminar.
Arthur
It follows that these 60 peers accepted Professor Jones' criticism of Bazant & Zhou:
--10. I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College).
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
ATTENDENCE at a seminar does not IMPLY agreement with the seminar.
Arthur
And one more obvious fact about the sprinkler systems in the towers.
Obviously the Madrid fire sprinkler systems either didn't work very well, or that fire was just too intense for them to have any effect.
But if you look at the WTC fires, you'll notice that well within an hour the fires were almost out. Just compare the fires on the WTC towers to the one in Madrid
Look, as time went by the fires were almost out
So based upon the evidence, in comparison to the Madrid fires it looks like the sprinkler systems in the towers HAD PLENTY OF WATER, and the system was obviously WORKING, after all the fire went out in a relatively short period of time, as reported by the firemen.
It was right AFTER the fires were just about out that the BOMBS started going off, which was followed by the collapse of the towers.
Fires don't even melt or shatter the metal on your stove top, but they want us to believe that jet fuel fire, which is LESS HOT and was ALMOST OUT, DISINTEGRATED the thick metal cores and steel framing of the towers in about an hour.
IN NOT ONE, NOT 2, BUT 3 BUILDINGS IN ONE DAY.
GEEEET OOOOUTTA HEEEERE!
What kind of a moron do you have to be to believe all that nonsense.
And people wonder why the US is DECLINING so much in the economy, and in so many other ways. Not only have the morals been THROWN OUT THE WINDOW, but the intelligent factor as well.
People are being taught to be ignorant, mindless morons, who can't think for themselves. What are the schools and universities teaching their students, seeings how they have to support the fairy tale lie.
What are they teaching in physics and the sciences. How does a professor tell his students that a fire caused the tower to collapse?
I'm probably a jerk for thinking this, but I thought the United States had a lot more on the ball a few years back, regarding intelligence and technology, etc. but look at us now.
Air head, brain dead, mentally retarded idiots like Arthur, cOmMoN sEnSe, yesdidit, reality check, etc. etc. illustrates how stupid and CORRUPT all too many people in this nation have become.
It's bad enough that criminals run the government, but when you see all the idiotic morons who support and promote this sick, retarded BS it's no wonder this nation is some serious trouble.
And I don't just blame the idiots on this board, but Popular Mechanics, Fox News, etc. etc. these parasites have acted like a cancer, helping to turn what I used to think was a pretty awesome nation into a country of lying nit-wits, who actually think it's moral to illegally invade another country and murder in excess of 100,000 innocent civilians, for starters.
Oh by the way, IRAN IS NEXT ON THE LIST. Only God knows how far that will go, but the LUNACY in this country has gotten so bad, we're about to start a nuclear war in the middle east. Oh yeah, we'll use our "PUNK" Israel to initiate, but don't think for a minute that Israel is really an independent nation, in reality the country of Israel is just a "Punk" of the neo/con family.
And if anyone mentions Israel in the bible, don't even get me started. These people are not real Jews, but in fact they are Nazi's disguised as Jews, I know, because I've got much inside information on that.
I'm not saying all the Jewish people living in the land of Israel are Nazi's, but I am saying the Neo/cons ruining the place are about as Jewish as little bush has a true Christian heart. Buuuuuulllllllll feathers, but most of you nit-wits never read the bible.
And so because your biblically illiterate you have to rely on the wolves in sheep's clothing, false prophets and other murderers, like Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and other Satan worshipers who disguise themselves in fancy clothing with a cross on the outside, but on the inside in-sighting murder, mayhem and just about every other abomination under the sun.
And for all you biblically illiterate people who have been wondering who satan really is, it's another name for man, it's not a cartoon character running around with red underware and pitchfork, but Satan is a term to describe the bad part of mankind. It's not a fairy tale.
And don't think for a minute that little bush JR. is the only one. We've all acted like little devils at various times in our lives, some seem to be a little more evil than others though.
Obviously the Madrid fire sprinkler systems either didn't work very well, or that fire was just too intense for them to have any effect.
But if you look at the WTC fires, you'll notice that well within an hour the fires were almost out. Just compare the fires on the WTC towers to the one in Madrid
Look, as time went by the fires were almost out
So based upon the evidence, in comparison to the Madrid fires it looks like the sprinkler systems in the towers HAD PLENTY OF WATER, and the system was obviously WORKING, after all the fire went out in a relatively short period of time, as reported by the firemen.
It was right AFTER the fires were just about out that the BOMBS started going off, which was followed by the collapse of the towers.
Fires don't even melt or shatter the metal on your stove top, but they want us to believe that jet fuel fire, which is LESS HOT and was ALMOST OUT, DISINTEGRATED the thick metal cores and steel framing of the towers in about an hour.
IN NOT ONE, NOT 2, BUT 3 BUILDINGS IN ONE DAY.
GEEEET OOOOUTTA HEEEERE!
What kind of a moron do you have to be to believe all that nonsense.
And people wonder why the US is DECLINING so much in the economy, and in so many other ways. Not only have the morals been THROWN OUT THE WINDOW, but the intelligent factor as well.
People are being taught to be ignorant, mindless morons, who can't think for themselves. What are the schools and universities teaching their students, seeings how they have to support the fairy tale lie.
What are they teaching in physics and the sciences. How does a professor tell his students that a fire caused the tower to collapse?
I'm probably a jerk for thinking this, but I thought the United States had a lot more on the ball a few years back, regarding intelligence and technology, etc. but look at us now.
Air head, brain dead, mentally retarded idiots like Arthur, cOmMoN sEnSe, yesdidit, reality check, etc. etc. illustrates how stupid and CORRUPT all too many people in this nation have become.
It's bad enough that criminals run the government, but when you see all the idiotic morons who support and promote this sick, retarded BS it's no wonder this nation is some serious trouble.
And I don't just blame the idiots on this board, but Popular Mechanics, Fox News, etc. etc. these parasites have acted like a cancer, helping to turn what I used to think was a pretty awesome nation into a country of lying nit-wits, who actually think it's moral to illegally invade another country and murder in excess of 100,000 innocent civilians, for starters.
Oh by the way, IRAN IS NEXT ON THE LIST. Only God knows how far that will go, but the LUNACY in this country has gotten so bad, we're about to start a nuclear war in the middle east. Oh yeah, we'll use our "PUNK" Israel to initiate, but don't think for a minute that Israel is really an independent nation, in reality the country of Israel is just a "Punk" of the neo/con family.
And if anyone mentions Israel in the bible, don't even get me started. These people are not real Jews, but in fact they are Nazi's disguised as Jews, I know, because I've got much inside information on that.
I'm not saying all the Jewish people living in the land of Israel are Nazi's, but I am saying the Neo/cons ruining the place are about as Jewish as little bush has a true Christian heart. Buuuuuulllllllll feathers, but most of you nit-wits never read the bible.
And so because your biblically illiterate you have to rely on the wolves in sheep's clothing, false prophets and other murderers, like Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and other Satan worshipers who disguise themselves in fancy clothing with a cross on the outside, but on the inside in-sighting murder, mayhem and just about every other abomination under the sun.
And for all you biblically illiterate people who have been wondering who satan really is, it's another name for man, it's not a cartoon character running around with red underware and pitchfork, but Satan is a term to describe the bad part of mankind. It's not a fairy tale.
And don't think for a minute that little bush JR. is the only one. We've all acted like little devils at various times in our lives, some seem to be a little more evil than others though.
From Arthur -
"ATTENDENCE at a seminar does not IMPLY agreement with the seminar."
From Professor Jones -
"The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81). We call for the release of these data to a cross-disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers."
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
REPLYING to Arthur does not IMPLY he has credibility
"ATTENDENCE at a seminar does not IMPLY agreement with the seminar."
From Professor Jones -
"The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81). We call for the release of these data to a cross-disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers."
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
REPLYING to Arthur does not IMPLY he has credibility
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 4 2006, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2006, 04:24 PM)
In this case the plane impacted the upper floors, blew jet fuel down the elevator shafts where it detonated, blowing out the 3" thik lobby windows AND the fire doors, thus eliminating those design elements that were to prevent it acting as a chimney.
Arthur
Was this the reason for the bombs in the lobby and basement levels? Were they trying to create a draft to increase the fires higher up in the building? I have often wondered why it was necessary for bombs to go off in the lower levels before the demolition. Arthur can you check with your sources?
How about this question instead. How much jet fuel needs to travel down the one continues elevator shaft to cause the 3” lobby windows to break? Was the Lobby elevator door programmed to open for an explosion ?
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Duh, he never says this.
He talks about all the steel ON A FLOOR being heated, not the whole building.
He also says that they HAD to fall straight down because there was no force to make it do anything BUT fall straight down.
Yeah, 1 floor (according to him) gets completely smothered in jet fuel and this is supposed to make the entire skyscraper collapse? Impossible. What, are there not many other floors underneath to prevent such a floor from bulleting all the way to the bottom? You're making it sound as if the entire building was an empty container consisting of one floor that determines the life support and well being of the building itself; that if that floor was to be jeopardized, the entire life of the building will cease to exist. And this is supposed to apply to both Twin Towers as well? What are the odds (If there are even any)? It's a terrible arguement, and the general public is supposed to believe this stupidity? Let me remind you that the general public is a lot smarter than what the government hopes for.
Look, the Madrid Fires were much worse and many parts of that building collapsed. But the ENTIRE building did not collapse, and it certainly wouldn't have collapsed on its own footprint. In fact, none of the falling debris from the Madrid building collapsed in a uniformed manner. Some debris collapsed randomly. On the other hand, any person (with or without a structural engineering background) can easily notice the almost identical collapses of the WTC Twin Towers. Even WTC 7 collapsed upon its own footprint. All three buildings belonged to Larry Silverstein. Banker's Trust, which was closer to the Twin Towers than WTC 7, didn't even collapse. It got damaged, but it didn't collapse.
He talks about all the steel ON A FLOOR being heated, not the whole building.
He also says that they HAD to fall straight down because there was no force to make it do anything BUT fall straight down.
Yeah, 1 floor (according to him) gets completely smothered in jet fuel and this is supposed to make the entire skyscraper collapse? Impossible. What, are there not many other floors underneath to prevent such a floor from bulleting all the way to the bottom? You're making it sound as if the entire building was an empty container consisting of one floor that determines the life support and well being of the building itself; that if that floor was to be jeopardized, the entire life of the building will cease to exist. And this is supposed to apply to both Twin Towers as well? What are the odds (If there are even any)? It's a terrible arguement, and the general public is supposed to believe this stupidity? Let me remind you that the general public is a lot smarter than what the government hopes for.
Look, the Madrid Fires were much worse and many parts of that building collapsed. But the ENTIRE building did not collapse, and it certainly wouldn't have collapsed on its own footprint. In fact, none of the falling debris from the Madrid building collapsed in a uniformed manner. Some debris collapsed randomly. On the other hand, any person (with or without a structural engineering background) can easily notice the almost identical collapses of the WTC Twin Towers. Even WTC 7 collapsed upon its own footprint. All three buildings belonged to Larry Silverstein. Banker's Trust, which was closer to the Twin Towers than WTC 7, didn't even collapse. It got damaged, but it didn't collapse.
bolt,
The problem you have in understanding the official 9/11 explanation is you're just not accepting the fact that Bin Laden had magical powers and was able to suspend the laws of physics and gravity that day.
You're assuming the laws of physics, gravity and nature remained constant on 9/11 and are failing to take into account that magical powers that came from the man in the cave.
In fact here's proof that Bin Laden has magical powers, he's been able to avoid getting caught all these years, therefore this proves the towers pancaked, never mind all the logic and mathematical calculations that prove it was impossible for the towers to have collapsed without the aid of explosives.
Another problem you have with accepting the governmental explanation is that you keep hanging on to true factual evidence, and you keep rejecting things that are impossible.
If you want to be respected by Arthur and common sense, you better throw all that truth, facts and logic out the window and adopt their NEW THEORY OF THE MAGICAL MAN IN THE CAVE.
The problem you have in understanding the official 9/11 explanation is you're just not accepting the fact that Bin Laden had magical powers and was able to suspend the laws of physics and gravity that day.
You're assuming the laws of physics, gravity and nature remained constant on 9/11 and are failing to take into account that magical powers that came from the man in the cave.
In fact here's proof that Bin Laden has magical powers, he's been able to avoid getting caught all these years, therefore this proves the towers pancaked, never mind all the logic and mathematical calculations that prove it was impossible for the towers to have collapsed without the aid of explosives.
Another problem you have with accepting the governmental explanation is that you keep hanging on to true factual evidence, and you keep rejecting things that are impossible.
If you want to be respected by Arthur and common sense, you better throw all that truth, facts and logic out the window and adopt their NEW THEORY OF THE MAGICAL MAN IN THE CAVE.
Yesitdid asked, “Inward bowing, impossible you say?”
No. If you believe that is what I said then you have misunderstood.
If the observed effect was inward bowing, and it is accepted that thermal expansion would cause the effect to be outward bowing then the logic which follows is that thermal expansion was not responsible for the observed effect.
Let us examine the photo which you have provided.
If the floors had been responsible for inward bowing of these perimeter columns, then their intersection, that is the joint between floor and perimeter column, would be the points which show the maximum horizontal inward deflection.
The photograph shows no marked inward deflection. Perhaps a bigger photograph showing several nodes would have been better to examine this phenomenon.
It does show three columns which have undergone significant plastic deformation. This has taken the form of a buckling failure across the wall - the direction which would be expected because of the difference in the second moment of area in that direction.
There are also other members affixed to the outside, which have deformed.
It also shows that the upper of the two floors shown has deflected downwards.
The photograph does illustrate the durability of such construction in that it could absorb significant heat energy and plastic deformation and still remain largely intact.
G.
No. If you believe that is what I said then you have misunderstood.
If the observed effect was inward bowing, and it is accepted that thermal expansion would cause the effect to be outward bowing then the logic which follows is that thermal expansion was not responsible for the observed effect.
Let us examine the photo which you have provided.
If the floors had been responsible for inward bowing of these perimeter columns, then their intersection, that is the joint between floor and perimeter column, would be the points which show the maximum horizontal inward deflection.
The photograph shows no marked inward deflection. Perhaps a bigger photograph showing several nodes would have been better to examine this phenomenon.
It does show three columns which have undergone significant plastic deformation. This has taken the form of a buckling failure across the wall - the direction which would be expected because of the difference in the second moment of area in that direction.
There are also other members affixed to the outside, which have deformed.
It also shows that the upper of the two floors shown has deflected downwards.
The photograph does illustrate the durability of such construction in that it could absorb significant heat energy and plastic deformation and still remain largely intact.
G.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 4 2006, 07:57 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 4 2006, 07:18 PM)
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Common sense,
You do realize the failure mechanism is different between this paper and NIST. So are you implying that NIST is wrong?
You mean the NIST said fire didn't cause steel to weaken which cause the collapse??? Did they say it was impossible for the fire to cause a collapse? I didn't hear this...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Common sense,
You do realize the failure mechanism is different between this paper and NIST. So are you implying that NIST is wrong?
You mean the NIST said fire didn't cause steel to weaken which cause the collapse??? Did they say it was impossible for the fire to cause a collapse? I didn't hear this...
Isn't it funny how the moron cOmMoN sEnSe tries to base his theories on what happened on some guy mentioned in some report.
The poor, mental defect doesn't even have enough common sense to know that fires that burn for less than an hour can't disintegrate steel high rises.
Enough said about the idiot, I've already wasted more than enough space as it is.
The poor, mental defect doesn't even have enough common sense to know that fires that burn for less than an hour can't disintegrate steel high rises.
Enough said about the idiot, I've already wasted more than enough space as it is.
This is IRREFUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE that proves that there was molten steel found in the WTC debris at ground zero...http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv. Pay attention to what the worker talks about.
Here is a pic that shows the red hot molten steel, mentioned by word of mouth from one of the debris workers in the video above. The pic below is from Brigham Young University:
Here is a pic that shows the red hot molten steel, mentioned by word of mouth from one of the debris workers in the video above. The pic below is from Brigham Young University:
QUOTE (guardian duty+Jan 4 2006, 09:48 PM)
This is IRREFUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE that proves that there was molten steel found in the WTC debris at ground zero...http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv. Pay attention to what the worker talks about.
Here is a pic that shows the red hot molten steel, mentioned by word of mouth from one of the debris workers in the video above. The pic below is from Brigham Young University:
Glowing hot is NOT molten.
Perhaps you need a dictionary
Here is a pic that shows the red hot molten steel, mentioned by word of mouth from one of the debris workers in the video above. The pic below is from Brigham Young University:
Glowing hot is NOT molten.
Perhaps you need a dictionary
if you looked at the dictionary term for molten http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=molten it reads.......
"Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright)."
so yeah, you're an idiot.
"Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright)."
so yeah, you're an idiot.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 4 2006, 09:51 PM)
QUOTE (guardian duty+Jan 4 2006, 09:48 PM)
This is IRREFUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE that proves that there was molten steel found in the WTC debris at ground zero...http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv. Pay attention to what the worker talks about.
Here is a pic that shows the red hot molten steel, mentioned by word of mouth from one of the debris workers in the video above. The pic below is from Brigham Young University:
Glowing hot is NOT molten.
Perhaps you need a dictionary
If only that was all he needed.
Here is a pic that shows the red hot molten steel, mentioned by word of mouth from one of the debris workers in the video above. The pic below is from Brigham Young University:
Glowing hot is NOT molten.
Perhaps you need a dictionary
If only that was all he needed.
Its also irrefutable evidence that the towers collapsed.
As they say,
BFD.
Arthur
As they say,
BFD.
Arthur
guardian duty,
Good post, and there is much other evidence that proves various types of explosves were used at the basement level of the towers,
But neither yesdidt, nor common sense are interested in factual evidence, remember THERE IS NO PLACE FOR TRUTH, FACTS OR LOGIC IN THEIR THEORIES.
And keep in mind they can provide proof that magical powers were at work that day, there proof is some statement made by some imposter on the Internet. And that of course over-rides all the mountains of evidence available.
Good post, and there is much other evidence that proves various types of explosves were used at the basement level of the towers,
But neither yesdidt, nor common sense are interested in factual evidence, remember THERE IS NO PLACE FOR TRUTH, FACTS OR LOGIC IN THEIR THEORIES.
And keep in mind they can provide proof that magical powers were at work that day, there proof is some statement made by some imposter on the Internet. And that of course over-rides all the mountains of evidence available.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 4 2006, 08:55 PM)
From Arthur -
"ATTENDENCE at a seminar does not IMPLY agreement with the seminar."
From Professor Jones -
"The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81). We call for the release of these data to a cross-disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers."
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
REPLYING to Arthur does not IMPLY he has credibility
Agreeing that further investigation is called for is not agreement with the THESIS that the buildings were blown up by controlled demolition.
Since its likely that Jones sent out the invitations himself, it is also a potentially self selected audience, not a whole lot of meaning in that.
Arthur
"ATTENDENCE at a seminar does not IMPLY agreement with the seminar."
From Professor Jones -
"The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81). We call for the release of these data to a cross-disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers."
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
REPLYING to Arthur does not IMPLY he has credibility
Agreeing that further investigation is called for is not agreement with the THESIS that the buildings were blown up by controlled demolition.
Since its likely that Jones sent out the invitations himself, it is also a potentially self selected audience, not a whole lot of meaning in that.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Its also irrefutable evidence that the towers collapsed.
It's also irrefutable evidence that you and Common Sense have a combined IQ less than Yesitdid, who actually isn't very intelligent himself. Do any of you three liars even know what the word "irrefutable" means?
___________________________________________________
It's also irrefutable evidence that you and Common Sense have a combined IQ less than Yesitdid, who actually isn't very intelligent himself. Do any of you three liars even know what the word "irrefutable" means?
___________________________________________________
Well do tell, what significance should we get from hot metal pulled from a many story high smoldering pile of rubble?
I mean besides the already known fact that STEEL is a relatively POOR conductor of heat?
Arthur
I mean besides the already known fact that STEEL is a relatively POOR conductor of heat?
Arthur
QUOTE (guardian duty+Jan 4 2006, 09:55 PM)
if you looked at the dictionary term for molten http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=molten it reads.......
"Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright)."
so yeah, you're an idiot.
I suppose one out of three isn't that bad
Molten:
1)Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2)Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3)Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
You chose the third definition. Oh, so you agree then that no steel melted just glowed red hot.
"Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright)."
so yeah, you're an idiot.
I suppose one out of three isn't that bad
Molten:
1)Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2)Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3)Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
You chose the third definition. Oh, so you agree then that no steel melted just glowed red hot.
QUOTE (.dread.+Jan 4 2006, 10:02 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Its also irrefutable evidence that the towers collapsed.
It's also irrefutable evidence that you and Common Sense have a combined IQ less than Yesitdid, who actually isn't very intelligent himself. Do any of you three liars even know what the word "irrefutable" means?
___________________________________________________
Someone I haven't bitch slapped yet entering the fray. I just may start having some fun again.
Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. I carry a saw...
It's also irrefutable evidence that you and Common Sense have a combined IQ less than Yesitdid, who actually isn't very intelligent himself. Do any of you three liars even know what the word "irrefutable" means?
___________________________________________________
Someone I haven't bitch slapped yet entering the fray. I just may start having some fun again.
Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. I carry a saw...
QUOTE ( yesitdid aka common sense aka adoucette+)
suppose one out of three isn't that bad
Molten:
1)Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2)Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3)Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
You chose the third definition. Oh, so you agree then that no steel melted just glowed red hot.
If you had read that guest's post, he or she posted a picture of a glowing reddish hot slab of metal being picked up by the crane. If you used your brain (which you you don't exactly know how to use), you would be able to get an idea as to that guest's point. He or she is also provided a video in which the ground zero workers were talking about the persistent heat in the disaster area, despite the fact that it had been several weekas after the 9/11 attacks already. The post points to the direction that there could have been other causes for the WTC collapses instead of the pathetic jet fuel cr@p.
____________________________________________________
Molten:
1)Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2)Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3)Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
You chose the third definition. Oh, so you agree then that no steel melted just glowed red hot.
If you had read that guest's post, he or she posted a picture of a glowing reddish hot slab of metal being picked up by the crane. If you used your brain (which you you don't exactly know how to use), you would be able to get an idea as to that guest's point. He or she is also provided a video in which the ground zero workers were talking about the persistent heat in the disaster area, despite the fact that it had been several weekas after the 9/11 attacks already. The post points to the direction that there could have been other causes for the WTC collapses instead of the pathetic jet fuel cr@p.
____________________________________________________
QUOTE (Common Sense+)
Someone I haven't bitch slapped yet entering the fray. I just may start having some fun again.
Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. I carry a saw...
Careful, dread would tear you from limb to limb.
Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. I carry a saw...
Careful, dread would tear you from limb to limb.
QUOTE (.dread.+Jan 4 2006, 10:23 PM)
QUOTE ( yesitdid aka common sense aka adoucette+)
suppose one out of three isn't that bad
Molten:
1)Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2)Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3)Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
You chose the third definition. Oh, so you agree then that no steel melted just glowed red hot.
If you had read that guest's post, he or she posted a picture of a glowing reddish hot slab of metal being picked up by the crane. If you used your brain (which you you don't exactly know how to use), you would be able to get an idea as to that guest's point. He or she is also provided a video in which the ground zero workers were talking about the persistent heat in the disaster area, despite the fact that it had been several weekas after the 9/11 attacks already. The post points to the direction that there could have been other causes for the WTC collapses instead of the pathetic jet fuel cr@p.
____________________________________________________
110 stories worth of office debris compressed into the garage area under the towers and on fire wouldn't have anything to do with it right you f**king moron...
DUH
Molten:
1)Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2)Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3)Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
You chose the third definition. Oh, so you agree then that no steel melted just glowed red hot.
If you had read that guest's post, he or she posted a picture of a glowing reddish hot slab of metal being picked up by the crane. If you used your brain (which you you don't exactly know how to use), you would be able to get an idea as to that guest's point. He or she is also provided a video in which the ground zero workers were talking about the persistent heat in the disaster area, despite the fact that it had been several weekas after the 9/11 attacks already. The post points to the direction that there could have been other causes for the WTC collapses instead of the pathetic jet fuel cr@p.
____________________________________________________
110 stories worth of office debris compressed into the garage area under the towers and on fire wouldn't have anything to do with it right you f**king moron...
DUH
QUOTE (bolt+Jan 4 2006, 10:27 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+)
Someone I haven't bitch slapped yet entering the fray. I just may start having some fun again.
Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. I carry a saw...
Careful, dread would tear you from limb to limb.
Damn, now I can't sleep at night.
Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. I carry a saw...
Careful, dread would tear you from limb to limb.
Damn, now I can't sleep at night.
QUOTE (.dread.+Jan 4 2006, 10:23 PM)
QUOTE ( yesitdid +)
suppose one out of three isn't that bad
Molten:
1)Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2)Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3)Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
You chose the third definition. Oh, so you agree then that no steel melted just glowed red hot.
If you had read that guest's post, he or she posted a picture of a glowing reddish hot slab of metal being picked up by the crane. If you used your brain (which you you don't exactly know how to use), you would be able to get an idea as to that guest's point. He or she is also provided a video in which the ground zero workers were talking about the persistent heat in the disaster area, despite the fact that it had been several weekas after the 9/11 attacks already. The post points to the direction that there could have been other causes for the WTC collapses instead of the pathetic jet fuel cr@p.
____________________________________________________
ActuallyI was assuming this was supposed to be backing up the claim of molten steel, ie. "pools of molten" metal that the CT sites report on.
So you are agreeing that such is not backed up by this photo, are you .dread?
Molten:
1)Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2)Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3)Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
You chose the third definition. Oh, so you agree then that no steel melted just glowed red hot.
If you had read that guest's post, he or she posted a picture of a glowing reddish hot slab of metal being picked up by the crane. If you used your brain (which you you don't exactly know how to use), you would be able to get an idea as to that guest's point. He or she is also provided a video in which the ground zero workers were talking about the persistent heat in the disaster area, despite the fact that it had been several weekas after the 9/11 attacks already. The post points to the direction that there could have been other causes for the WTC collapses instead of the pathetic jet fuel cr@p.
____________________________________________________
ActuallyI was assuming this was supposed to be backing up the claim of molten steel, ie. "pools of molten" metal that the CT sites report on.
So you are agreeing that such is not backed up by this photo, are you .dread?
QUOTE (Common Sense+)
10 stories worth of office debris compressed into the garage area under the towers and on fire wouldn't have anything to do with it right you f**king moron
Do you have any credible source that would explain how "office debris" would amplify the intensity of the fires? Do you have anything that can prove that "office debris" can make red hot steel and smoke burn for 6+ weeks after 9/11? The video that Guardian Duty provided shows the team describing the hot conditions and one of them clearly mentions that it has been going on for several weeks.
What kind of office material can fuel a chain reaction such as the one being described in the video? Where's your proof?
Do you have any credible source that would explain how "office debris" would amplify the intensity of the fires? Do you have anything that can prove that "office debris" can make red hot steel and smoke burn for 6+ weeks after 9/11? The video that Guardian Duty provided shows the team describing the hot conditions and one of them clearly mentions that it has been going on for several weeks.
What kind of office material can fuel a chain reaction such as the one being described in the video? Where's your proof?
QUOTE (bolt+Jan 4 2006, 10:33 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+)
10 stories worth of office debris compressed into the garage area under the towers and on fire wouldn't have anything to do with it right you f**king moron
Do you have any credible source that would explain how "office debris" would amplify the intensity of the fires? Do you have anything that can prove that "office debris" can make red hot steel and smoke burn for 6+ weeks after the 9/11?
Do you have a credible souce which says 110 stories worth of office debris CAN'T stay on fire for 6 weeks? Have you tested this hypothesis?
Do you have any credible source that would explain how "office debris" would amplify the intensity of the fires? Do you have anything that can prove that "office debris" can make red hot steel and smoke burn for 6+ weeks after the 9/11?
Do you have a credible souce which says 110 stories worth of office debris CAN'T stay on fire for 6 weeks? Have you tested this hypothesis?
You mean can 100 acres worth of it smolder for 6 weeks?
Answer: Easily
2nd Answer: You are a MORON.
Arthur
Answer: Easily
2nd Answer: You are a MORON.
Arthur
Common Sense said, " 110 stories worth of office debris compressed into the garage area under the towers and on fire wouldn't have anything to do with it right
This statement is correct although it seems that you are trying to be sarcastic. Are you suggesting that the steel temperatures in excess of 1000 C were caused by burning of compressed office debris in an oxygen poor atmosphere?
G
This statement is correct although it seems that you are trying to be sarcastic. Are you suggesting that the steel temperatures in excess of 1000 C were caused by burning of compressed office debris in an oxygen poor atmosphere?
G
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 4 2006, 04:08 PM)
Great pic metamars.
Lucid reasoning as usual.
Thank you.
Thanks. I try. I don't believe in winning at all costs, and that applies to debates also. Consequently, I only want to make strong arguments, and never just go after the weak arguments of my opponents. And I don't use sophistic arguments that I don't believe myself, either. That is what politicians do.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), most all the FEMA Fairy Tale arguments are so weak, they make it tough to even address one of their strong arguments, since they don't seem to have many. Their strongest one may well be the NIST study, which implies that a local collapse is possible. Frankly, even though I haven't read it, I think I do read Professor Jones correctly when he implies (apparently) that their methodology was fraudulent. In any event, not being competent to attack that directly, I don't disparage that aspect of it beyond saying that I'm doubtful it true, but even if it is, their not investigating how a local collapse could possibly turn into a global collapse is not just outrageous, but a slap in the face to the families that lost loved one on 911. They should be ashamed. Had there been no background controversy, I probably would not have even thought of characterizing their abbreviated efforts like this. But 911 is a mega-scam, and they are now a part of that corruption. I wonder how the participants sleep at night, or manage to look themselves in the mirror....
Debating with the other side has certainly been of value (which is one reason I don't obsess about who may or may not be a shill), and inspired me to take a close look at the collapsing spire, plus see where BZ lead us to (more or less where I suspected - to 'The Land of Make Believe'). We also (thank God) got Gordon to weigh in with his crucial input. Of course, the end result wrt these last two is to weaken their case even further. (Basically, the collapse time argument becomes irrelevant, since it's silly to talk about how fast or slow a collapse should have been in a FEMA Fairy Tale scenario, when a global collapse, at the very least, appears forbidden by the laws of physics)
Furthermore, this board forced me to pay attention to the correct collapse times and made me realize that ignoring combustibles is not justified in a full treatment.
Lucid reasoning as usual.
Thank you.
Thanks. I try. I don't believe in winning at all costs, and that applies to debates also. Consequently, I only want to make strong arguments, and never just go after the weak arguments of my opponents. And I don't use sophistic arguments that I don't believe myself, either. That is what politicians do.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), most all the FEMA Fairy Tale arguments are so weak, they make it tough to even address one of their strong arguments, since they don't seem to have many. Their strongest one may well be the NIST study, which implies that a local collapse is possible. Frankly, even though I haven't read it, I think I do read Professor Jones correctly when he implies (apparently) that their methodology was fraudulent. In any event, not being competent to attack that directly, I don't disparage that aspect of it beyond saying that I'm doubtful it true, but even if it is, their not investigating how a local collapse could possibly turn into a global collapse is not just outrageous, but a slap in the face to the families that lost loved one on 911. They should be ashamed. Had there been no background controversy, I probably would not have even thought of characterizing their abbreviated efforts like this. But 911 is a mega-scam, and they are now a part of that corruption. I wonder how the participants sleep at night, or manage to look themselves in the mirror....
Debating with the other side has certainly been of value (which is one reason I don't obsess about who may or may not be a shill), and inspired me to take a close look at the collapsing spire, plus see where BZ lead us to (more or less where I suspected - to 'The Land of Make Believe'). We also (thank God) got Gordon to weigh in with his crucial input. Of course, the end result wrt these last two is to weaken their case even further. (Basically, the collapse time argument becomes irrelevant, since it's silly to talk about how fast or slow a collapse should have been in a FEMA Fairy Tale scenario, when a global collapse, at the very least, appears forbidden by the laws of physics)
Furthermore, this board forced me to pay attention to the correct collapse times and made me realize that ignoring combustibles is not justified in a full treatment.
You f**king morons bring up the madrid office fire which was never hit by an airplane traveling at 500 miles an hour yet burned for 26 hours with people pouring water on it since it started yet you can't imagine a 110 story office building compressed into a garage burning for 6 weeks...
Now show me a controlled demolition where the steel was pulled out red even the same day...
Now show me a controlled demolition where the steel was pulled out red even the same day...
QUOTE (adoucette+)
You mean can 100 acres worth of it smolder for 6 weeks?
And you're source?
The only logical and consistent hypothesis as to why these glowing red slabs of steel remained hot for 6 weeks is that explosives or something of that type of force exerted was used. Is this a hypothesis? Absolutely. But it is highly consistent
with other factors that have been presented by the anti-official story sources.
Your thesis is wreaked with holes, no offense. You make claims that red hot steel can smolder for 6 weeks because of jet fuel fire and "office debris", yet there is no evidence to support your arguements. If you have evidence to support your arguements, then how come you consistently avoid providing them?
And you're source?
The only logical and consistent hypothesis as to why these glowing red slabs of steel remained hot for 6 weeks is that explosives or something of that type of force exerted was used. Is this a hypothesis? Absolutely. But it is highly consistent
with other factors that have been presented by the anti-official story sources.
Your thesis is wreaked with holes, no offense. You make claims that red hot steel can smolder for 6 weeks because of jet fuel fire and "office debris", yet there is no evidence to support your arguements. If you have evidence to support your arguements, then how come you consistently avoid providing them?
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.