To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Basic Physics
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148

galdur
Add Ground Effect which makes it physically impossible
to hit the Pentagon at the first floor at the stated speed
unless in a dive.
galdur
In order to buy the official 9/11 fable you have to suspend
physical laws.
biggrin.gif

frater plecticus
QUOTE
i agree!

the most obvious thing is the anthrax from us military labs.
the most obvious thing is tower seven.
the most obvious thing is repeated freudian slips by the conspirators.
the most obvious thing is a twenty dollar american bill folded like an paper airplane(great 'mad' art, although it's SUPER-EVIL!).
the most obvious thing is the energy sink.
the most obvious thing is the destruction of american freedom by those sworn to protect it.
the most obvious thing is media complicity.
the most obvious thing is the money, insider trading, insurance rewards...
the most obvious thing is that ALL this is OBVIOUS and IRREFUTABLE.

now what?


Find a Lawyer with enough balls to issue an Arrest warrant for G W Bush.

newton
yes. buying the official lie requires massive cognitive dissonance.

what's even more amazing than pulling off the whole affair in the first place, is the mass hypnotism used since to mentally enslave the populace.

kind of like 'foundation and empire' had psychohistorians who could scientifically predict social trends through predictability models, so do we have 'galluputians' running 'reality' using simple pavlovian technique in our present earth information matrix.

i try and think of ways to get everyone to 'break out of the box', but it's a pretty BIG problem, no?
galdur
Since the govt. is able to sell impossible fables that
violate natural laws this means that there's something
seriously wrong with the education system. When
millions of people and the entire Congress choose to
belive impossible things which the govt. and congress
then base their policy on, well what you have is a total
intellectual and moral breakdown.
Lon Waters
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 9 2006, 05:00 AM)
Reply to Lon Waters

QUOTE
Truth be told, we can't clearly see when the exterior of the building has hit the ground. But we can infer what happens from photographic evidence before the obscuring debris had completely encircled the tower. Assuming an accelerated demolition which 'catches up' with the falling debris begs the question of "who cares?" since you are already assuming a demolition. Assuming an accelerated gravitational collapse which would exceed the rate of free falling, large metallic pieces of building, is unphysical, even if the rest of the building "decided" to collapse at free fall speed after a 20+ floor head start.


emphasis mine

Sorry, but this is really not clear. Frankly, I myself find this last sentence confusing. sad.gif

What I'm trying to say is that, assuming a FEMA Friendly gravitational collapse scenario, once you know that falling debris is already at least 20 floors lower than the uncollapsed top of the tower, midway through the collapse, the only way you can "end up" with a free fall like collapse time is if the building started falling even faster than the debris. (Which also implies faster than free fall.)

Aristotle (IIRC) used to teach that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, so if he was alive today, and had never studied physics, he might look at the photo and say "Oh, it was heavier, so catching up with the debris is possible"

If Galileo, OTOH, was alive today, he would laugh at Aristotle, who still hadn't caught on after all these years.
laugh.gif

I finally made it through all of the posts in this thread and found a discussion on air resistance which, together with your responses, clears up this issue for me.

I should perhaps have said I finally made it through all of the posts that I felt had merit. There is a worthy discussion embedded in this thread and I am glad I took the time to go through it, but it is quite a chore to pull out the good stuff. It was interesting to watch my personal filters go in place in trying to separate out the substance, and, in fact, it is likely I missed much good material for being buried in too much noise. Even in many of the better posts the noise could get a little loud.

As an example of signal and noise I offer the following randomly chosen short post:

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?

Removing the noise I get something like the following:

As indicated in the NIST report, the girl was on the upwind side
of the building, fresh air was coming in the hole she was standing
next to and the heat was going out the other side of the building.

This is the post of someone defending the official theory, but the same approach could be easily applied to countless posts both defending and criticizing the official theory. The first may have been more fun for the author to write, but I contend that the second is easier for most to read. Perhaps I am out of line here and should suggest only that the second is easier for me to read and extract the message.
gordon
It seems that this thread has come to a stop as far as the physics discussion is concerned. It would be good to see a synopsis, but the chances of me wading back through all 200+ pages to do so, are remote to non existent.
The question is, "what to do next?" The way I see it is you need to identify where you can get your fingernails in the cracks. For instance we know that NIST is at odds with many others when they say that the wall deflection would be inwards. So why not write to those who have said it should be outwards and get statements from them stating their position with regard to the NIST report. We say outward, you say outward, but NIST say inward. Divide and Rule - its a very effective strategy. Write to other organisations, making them choose sides.

Similarly, has anyone asked Silverstein how he could have meant firefighters since both NIST and FEMA have stated that there were none there. He can't be made to answer, but he can be made to make the choice and choose to not answer. By continually pushing a lie you can expose it, how many criminals end up telling ridiculous stories in court just because it was the only thing they could think up at the time and they are then stuck with statements they have made.
Who did Silverstein say he was talking to at the time? Has anyone asked them to comment?

What about the critical comments by some leading authorites regarding the FEMA and NIST reports. Has anyone written to them saying that you support and appreciate their position? Everyone likes to be appreciated. What else can you get from them?

What we need to find is the confidence that our knowledge should give us.
If you sincerely believe that the towers were brought down by causes, other than those reported by the government, then you have to take on that story head on, and that means taking on the government. Confront them. Make them repeat their lies or change them. Put some pressure on them.

Give people the details of the inconsistencies in the story, with reference to their viewpoint and outlook. For instance, an engineer may be swayed by my arguments, whereas an IT buff could be swayed by the cell phone argument, a phycisist by Prof Jones' work.
It is hard work, and when you start getting results, you're gonna start catching some flak.

It needs organisation so that you know what is being done by who, when. How it would be organised is not for me to dictate, but as a minimum it would be worth having a single forum or thread that everyone knows of, anyone could come to, receive ideas or details of what has to be done and then contribute as much or as little as they are able. The reports back would be good because it would give encouragement to others. There must be loads of people realising the truth, wanting to do something but not knowing where to go or what to do. Everyone can write letters or adapt standard letters, anyone could put some leaflets through letterboxes, or for the more adventurous, how about some flyposting? Everyone has some talents, and we cannot achieve success through the internet alone. How about concerted moves on the MSM letters pages, everytime a current story highlights an inconsistency it should be pointed out. Same with the MSM staff, when they repeat the line, they should be called to account, every time. Anything to reach that critical mass.

If you have one congresswoman who is hovering around the edge of coming out you can be sure that there will be a whole lot more checking out the reaction with one wetted finger raised in the air. Who are they? Has anyone asked?

These are just some thoughts, I don't really know what is going on at present regarding a campaign, but I hope this helps,
Gordon
Mel_Guest
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 9 2006, 06:59 PM)
So a little argument takes place, and some people side with the guy who wants to hire the spin doctors, while others understand that people are getting killed and the evidence is overwhelming. The spin doctor crowd takes the position that because one of the guys who presented the evidence, conclusively proving that the Nazi's are indeed killing people, just happens to believe in God, that the evidence therefore must be null and void, no matter how conclusive it is.

Precisely what concrete steps are you taking to resolve this 'problem', as opposed to spending your time actively telling us we're doing it wrong?

Tell me exactly what to do (reading the Bible won't cut it...it might abstractly describe what's happening in the world, but it surely doesn't offer a solution for anything but saving one's own soul, and even that's questionable).

So again, you tell me what to do.
metamars
QUOTE (newton+Jan 9 2006, 08:09 PM)
i agree!

the most obvious thing is the anthrax from us military labs.
the most obvious thing is tower seven.
the most obvious thing is repeated freudian slips by the conspirators.
the most obvious thing is a twenty dollar american bill folded like an paper airplane(great 'mad' art, although it's SUPER-EVIL!).
the most obvious thing is the energy sink.
the most obvious thing is the destruction of american freedom by those sworn to protect it.
the most obvious thing is media complicity.
the most obvious thing is the money, insider trading, insurance rewards...
the most obvious thing is that ALL this is OBVIOUS and IRREFUTABLE.

now what?

Assuming you don't have a budget for a multi-disciplinary effort, such as that called for by Professor Jones, you have to pick your spots.

You have mixed together things having nothing to do with engineering or physics, with engineering and physics related items.

Ignoring the former category, the obvious one is energy sink/source calculations, that should involve fluid hydrodynamics. I have asked for estimates as to $$$ at apollohoax.net, but nobody has given an answer. Also, here you want a physicist, chemist, or applied mathematician. You probably don't want a construction engineer.

Again, I have to wonder out loud - since Jimmy Walter has the $$$ for this, why has he not done so?

The collapse of WTC 7 is obviously a job for a construction engineer, but I have a mental block wrt that one since it's so self-evidently a demolition. I mean, if a physicist publishes a paper proving that water is wet, who will read it? Similarly, if you can find a construction engineer to study the WTC 7 collapse, more power to you. But I dont' know how you can begin to "break" whatever idealized model you come up with and come up with anything like what was observed.

Yes, that's what we'd want to have such an analysis show, but who will read that? Won't academics say "We already knew that." and then go on to something more interesting?

When I was in grad school, I had a choice between an emphasis in statistics and one in analysis. I chose the a latter mostly because it was more interesting, but also because the former was too easy.

I'm afraid a WTC 7 study might be so uninteresting that nobody will want to read it, and perhaps dismiss it with "Well, since it doesn't have definitive computer modelling, there's probably some error, but who has the patience to find it in such an obvious treatment?"

Another way to put this is: any academic who can look at the collapse of WTC 7 and not know immediately that such a perfectly symmetrical collapse must be due to CD, probably either needs glasses or ain't too smart.

Anyway, I could be dead wrong about the WTC 7 option. Again, I have a mental block regarding it.

Of course, with enough $$$, I'd be all for doing definitive computer modeling studies on all of the technical issues.
crafty
When things violate physical laws, which by definition are unchangeable, irrefutable and don't need any enforcement, those things are by definition impossible. It was impossible for the towers to collapse in the stated time because that implied no or negligable resistance from the structure, clearly a physical impossibility if you believe the official version. Similarily it was impossible for that 757 to approach and hit the Pentagon at the stated speed and at the first floor unless it was diving. So the official version is in violation of the laws of aerodynamics and therefore by definition impossible.

Not even members of Congress can suspend natural law so these massive anomalies and impossibilities have to be pointed out to them.
Guest
When things violate physical laws, which by definition are unchangeable, irrefutable and don't need any enforcement, those things are by definition impossible. It was impossible for the towers to collapse in the stated time because that implied no or negligable resistance from the structure, clearly a physical impossibility if you believe the official version. Similarily it was impossible for that 757 to approach and hit the Pentagon at the stated speed and at the first floor unless it was diving. So the official version is in violation of the laws of aerodynamics and therefore by definition impossible.

Not even members of Congress can suspend natural law so these massive anomalies and impossibilities have to be pointed out to them.
Guest
Sorry about the double post.

People are being killed on the basis of a policy based on theories that violates physical laws. Endless wars have been declared on the same basis. After ww2 people were hanged for starting a war on fraudulent prentenses and for committing mass murder. Nowadays the criminals just have their way. This is just harrowing and staggering.
metamars
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 9 2006, 08:34 PM)
It seems that this thread has come to a stop as far as the physics discussion is concerned.  It would be good to see a synopsis, but the chances of me wading back through all 200+ pages to do so, are remote to non existent.
The question is, "what to do next?"  The way I see it is you need to identify where you can get your fingernails in the cracks.  For instance we know that NIST is at odds with many others when they say that the wall deflection would be inwards.  So why not write to those who have said it should be outwards and get statements from them stating their position with regard to the NIST report.  We say outward, you say outward, but NIST say inward.  Divide and Rule - its a very effective strategy.  Write to other organisations, making them choose sides.

Similarly, has anyone asked Silverstein how he could have meant firefighters since both NIST and FEMA have stated that there were none there.  He can't be made to answer, but he can be made to make the choice and choose to not answer.  By continually pushing a lie you can expose it, how many criminals end up telling ridiculous stories in court just because it was the only thing they could think up at the time and they are then stuck with statements they have made.
Who did Silverstein say he was talking to at the time?  Has anyone asked them to comment?

What about the critical comments by some leading authorites regarding the FEMA and NIST reports.  Has anyone written to them saying that you support and appreciate their position?  Everyone likes to be appreciated.  What else can you get from them?

What we need to find is the confidence that our knowledge should give us.
If you sincerely believe that the towers were brought down by causes, other than those reported by the government, then you have to take on that story head on, and that means taking on the government.  Confront them.  Make them repeat their lies or change them.  Put some pressure on them.

Give people the details of the inconsistencies in the story, with reference to their viewpoint and outlook.  For instance, an engineer may be swayed by my arguments, whereas an IT buff could be swayed by the cell phone argument, a phycisist by Prof Jones' work.
It is hard work, and when you start getting results, you're gonna start catching some flak.

It needs organisation so that you know what is being done by who, when.  How it would be organised is not for me to dictate, but as a minimum it would be worth having a single forum or thread that everyone knows of, anyone could come to, receive ideas or details of what has to be done and then contribute as much or as little as they are able.  The reports back would be good because it would give encouragement to others.  There must be loads of people realising the truth, wanting to do something but not knowing where to go or what to do.  Everyone can write letters or adapt standard letters, anyone could put some leaflets through letterboxes, or for the more adventurous, how about some flyposting?  Everyone has some talents, and we cannot achieve success through the internet alone.  How about concerted moves on the MSM letters pages, everytime a current story highlights an inconsistency it should be pointed out.  Same with the MSM staff, when they repeat the line, they should be called to account, every time.  Anything to reach that critical mass.

If you have one congresswoman who is hovering around the edge of coming out you can be sure that there will be a whole lot more checking out the reaction with one wetted finger raised in the air.  Who are they?  Has anyone asked?

These are just some thoughts, I don't really know what is going on at present regarding a campaign, but I hope this helps,
Gordon

Emphasis mine. You're basically correct, though I still intend to solve the heat eqn for a more realistic solution. Can't say when, though.

I'd also like to see solid technical info on heat transfer from air into steel, and also some calculations that give at least a handle for how much energy from a fire could possibly end up in steel, due to radiance from the fire source.

Can you speak directly to my suggestions re hiring Ph.D. level construction engineer for a simplified WTC 1&2 collapse analysis?

What is flyposting? Posting flyers, as we say in the US, I presume.

I'd also like to see more pictures of blown up Iraqis, Bush's "Hook'em horns" hand signals, pictures of a dead Mussolini, and even more declarations of "no evidence" by "popes".

rolleyes.gif Just kidding with that last sentence.

I still have not received your spreadsheet. Have you sent it?
yesitdid
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 9 2006, 09:09 PM)
Sorry about the double post.

People are being killed on the basis of a policy based on theories that violates physical laws. Endless wars have been declared on the same basis. After ww2 people were hanged for starting a war on fraudulent prentenses and for committing mass murder. Nowadays the criminals just have their way. This is just harrowing and staggering.

This is a political topic, not a physics topic.

Pictures of dead people are poltical statements.

If Islamic fundentalists did not want the USA bombing Iraq or any other majority Islamic state then they should not have declared war on the USA.

I agree that the war in Iraq, that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, al-Qeada was not linked to Saddam, that Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

Again though that is not a physics topic, period, end stop.
steve1957
Newton,

It's not that I particularly enjoy hurting people's feelings like metemar and gordon and foxx, after they've spent so much time analyzing the analysts, who analyze other analysts, who analyze reports put together by other analysts, who made their reports by analyzing other analysts.

And I understand why some people may feel that we need to hire even more analysts to analyze all the other analysts up to date, and not make any conclusions until we hire even more analysts, ETC. ETC. ETC............................................................................. perpetually, forever and ever.

And don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in doing a thorough investigation of the facts as best we can in order to derive at the best possible conclusion. But think about it logically, this happened over 4 years ago and there has been a ton of money, time and research performed by legitimate scientists all over the world, who have shared their reports, via Internet, and other methods, whereby MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT THAT PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE TOWERS WERE IN FACT IMPLODED.

Yes, you can spend the rest of eternity if you like in performing more research and if metemars, gordon and others desire to retain the services of more analysts, spin doctors or whatever they want, that's their business and I say do whatever turns them on.

But here's where I take serious issue some of their posts and why it's OBVIOUS TO ME that some of the things they are saying is very DIS-INGENUOUS. I didn't say all of the things they were saying, but some of the things are subtle seeds of dishonesty that is very obvious.

It's the very fact that they are putting on the facade that there is not enough proof to conclude some types of explosives were used, when in truth that fact is proven by the laws of physics.

Yeah, you can say we may not know exactly how many joints were involved, or the type of explosives used, or the exact timing of the virtual free fall rate of decent, but let's be honest. According to the natural laws of physics it has been proven that the towers were indeed demolished with explosions.

Now if metemars or gordon or anybody else wants to claim that there is not enough evidence to prove control demolition then fine, they have a right to their opinion, but I have a right to mine, throw it in the trash if you like, but my opinion is this.

ANYBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS OF PHYSICS KNOWS FOR A FACT THAT EXPLOSIVES WERE USED.

AND

ANYBODY CLAIMING TO KNOW PHYSICS WHO SAYS EXPLOSIVES WERE NOT USED IS LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

It's plain and simple, cut and dry, no debate about it.

And because of this I have to ask myself the question, "Why do these people still believe that another investigation is needed to determine whether explosives were used, when in fact that has already been proven?

It's like the millions spent on the 9/11 commission report. It was a scam, and they didn't even remotely address the key issues involved concerning the hard evidence that proves explosives were in deed planted.

So there you have it. Call me a God loving bible nut wacko, no problem, call me wrong if you like, no problem, but that is my firm belief and if I said anything other than that I'd be insincere myself.

One more thing. I have no idea what their true motives are. It may be nothing more than a couple of guys, sitting in their trailers, playing on the Internet, bored to tears, who have nothing better to do than look for analysts, who analyze other analysts, who analyze reports put together by other analysts, for ever and ever.
That's fine with me, whatever turns them on.

But when anybody claims there is not enough physical evidence to prove control demolition, sorry, but I gotta expose the lies.
galdur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 9 2006, 09:24 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 9 2006, 09:09 PM)
Sorry about the double post.

People are being killed on the basis of a policy based on theories that violates physical laws. Endless wars have been declared on the same basis. After ww2 people were hanged for starting a war on fraudulent prentenses and for committing mass murder. Nowadays the criminals just have their way. This is just harrowing and staggering.

This is a political topic, not a physics topic.

Pictures of dead people are poltical statements.

If Islamic fundentalists did not want the USA bombing Iraq or any other majority Islamic state then they should not have declared war on the USA.

I agree that the war in Iraq, that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, al-Qeada was not linked to Saddam, that Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

Again though that is not a physics topic, period, end stop.

Nonsense.

Since the official fable clearly violates physical laws it stands obviously to reason that the rest of it, terrorists and all, is total bunk too.
steve1957
QUOTE
mel-guest

So again, you tell me what to do.


Well you can start by being honest with yourself and others and stop pretending to be sincere about wanting my advise, when in fact my advise is the last thing you want.

But if I were to give you my advise, it would be to dig deep down in your heart and seek as much truth and wisdom as you can, and then take it from there.

Remember, I'm not God, and I don't have an exclusive on God, we're all His creation and He lives within all of us. You wouldn't be breathing if the life of God wasn't flowing through you.

So don't worry so much about asking me what to do, but rather ask your Maker, your just as close to Him as anyone else.
Guest
Steve 1957 and Galdur are obviously trying to get this thread shut down. That should tell you what side they are on.
galdur
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 9 2006, 09:48 PM)
Steve 1957 and Galdur are obviously trying to get this thread shut down. That should tell you what side they are on.


Nonsense.

Clearly on a science board people should try to figure whether
official theories stand up to physical laws or not. If they don't
that means those theories are impossible and that has certain
implications.
steve1957
One more thing that I find to be extremely INSINCERE AND DISHONEST about some of the things gordon. metemars and others are saying is that we should write to the people who support the lie and inform them of some technical errors in the reports.

I'm giving these people the benefit of the doubt, assuming they're not that stupid. It's like going to Hitlers henchmen, such as Julius Striker who wrote propaganda against the Jews in order to get rid of them, and then point out flaws in their reports, which prove they were lying.

It's like going to the CRIMINALS who made the reports to protect themselves and then asking them to change their report because it's wrong.

It's like asking little bush to investigate himself.

And here's another analogy of something that recently happened.

Michael Brown, the guy who headed up FEMA, during Katrina was accused of doing an extremely lousy job, (which I happen to believe) but whether it's true or not, he was accused of doing a rotten job, and so,

get this..

He was paid approximately $100,000. to investigate himself and

guess what?

His investigation concluded that he didn't do anything wrong. Amazing!

So some of the things these guys are suggesting are LUDICROUS, yet many people on this board will agree with them, and being the sheep that they are will fall into the same trap.
frater plecticus
QUOTE
ANYBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS OF PHYSICS KNOWS FOR A FACT THAT EXPLOSIVES WERE USED.

AND

ANYBODY CLAIMING TO KNOW PHYSICS WHO SAYS EXPLOSIVES WERE NOT USED IS LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

It's plain and simple, cut and dry, no debate about it.


TRUE

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
ANYBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS OF PHYSICS KNOWS FOR A FACT THAT EXPLOSIVES WERE USED.

AND

ANYBODY CLAIMING TO KNOW PHYSICS WHO SAYS EXPLOSIVES WERE NOT USED IS LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

It's plain and simple, cut and dry, no debate about it.


TRUE

QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 9 2006, 09:24 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 9 2006, 09:09 PM)
Sorry about the double post.

People are being killed on the basis of a policy based on theories that violates physical laws. Endless wars have been declared on the same basis. After ww2 people were hanged for starting a war on fraudulent prentenses and for committing mass murder. Nowadays the criminals just have their way. This is just harrowing and staggering.

This is a political topic, not a physics topic.

Pictures of dead people are poltical statements.

If Islamic fundentalists did not want the USA bombing Iraq or any other majority Islamic state then they should not have declared war on the USA.

I agree that the war in Iraq, that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, al-Qeada was not linked to Saddam, that Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

Again though that is not a physics topic, period, end stop.

Nonsense. TRUE


Since the official fable clearly violates physical laws it stands obviously to reason that the rest of it, terrorists and all, is total bunk too.
TRUE


Yes it did, you tried this pathetic argument before. Because the rag-headed "evil-doers" responsible for 9-11 were helped by a network of people within the upper echelons of the USA political body it is indeed political.

My initial suspicions surrounding 9-11 were tacticly confirmed when I received the following e-mail on september 16th 2001.....

QUOTE


Subj: "The enemy is very much within."
Date: 9/16/01 12:42:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time




-- "The enemy is very much within"

TOP_VIEW has just conducted a brief yet immeasurably important phone interview -- set up by a trusted and totally reliable intermediary already known to us -- with an Air Force Reserve intelligence specialist.

The interview was carried out this evening, over two days after the incredible death and devastation that took place in New York City and Washington D.C.

Our Air Force source told us his superiors had activated him at about 10 AM Tuesday morning.

He absolutely refused to permit us to record the conversation, even though he was speaking into some kind of electronic gizmo that substantially altered the sound of his voice; making him sound like Darth Vader with a serious chest cold.

Some portions of his statements were unintelligible, and he refused to repeat several of these.

Although this source was somewhat taciturn and close-lipped, for the most part he was cooperative in terms of giving us enough time to transcribe what he was saying. Overall what is stated plainly and unequivocally is of absolutely paramount importance for every single person in this nation and the world: certainly among those of us who value our inalienable human rights and liberties and want them to remain un-imperiled, un-abrogated and unabridged.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOP_VIEW: We'd like to hear what you have to say about the events on Tuesday. First of all, I assume you have knowledge of the events that goes above and beyond what the public is being told by the media and the government?

Intel source: That's quite correct.

TOP_VIEW: Can you -- are you able and willing to relay this information to us?

Intel source: Well, that depends. Some of it. You're going to publish this?

TOP_VIEW: On the Internet.

Intel source: It's essential that nothing which could possibly be used to identify myself or "**" (our intermediary) is made public.

TOP_VIEW: We totally understand. Completely. That's exactly how it will be, and --

Intel source: You've known "**" a long time?

TOP_VIEW: For about 6 years, sir.

Intel source: So... he'll vouch for you? (Chuckles) Fire away.

TOP_VIEW: Well... it's becoming increasingly clear that certain federal government sectors had prior knowledge of the destruction carried out on Tuesday. Would you concur with this?

Intel source: (unintelligible)

TOP_VIEW: Excuse me? I didn't understand you.

Intel source: Never mind.

TOP_VIEW: Is it true that our government knew what was going to happen?

Intel source: You could say that. Actually there are certain (pause) groups in our government who pretty much ran the whole show.

TOP_VIEW: Are you saying that there was cooperation and collaboration between elements of our government and the perpetrators?

Intel source: No. What I'm saying is that these groups (within the federal government - TV) were the perpetrators of the action, right down the line from top to bottom.

TOP_VIEW: This is really incredibly shocking, what you're saying here. Did I understand correctly, that you say elements of the federal government were the prime force behind these so-called terrorist attacks Tuesday?

Intel source: That's correct. Absolutely.

TOP_VIEW: God, what a horrifying thing to come to grips with! What is your feeling about this sir, and exactly why are you even talking to us about this? Are you positive about what you're saying?

Intel source: (laughs) What should I answer first? I would never make this kind of statement without being fully certain it was factual. My own feeling is that it's completely sickening. It's repugnant and unacceptable and I'm completely opposed to what was done. But it's true and we all have to deal with it. There are forces within our government who are completely determined to change the structure of our society at the most basic level, and these are the kind of things they're going to be doing to make sure that (fundamental changes in our society) happens.

TOP_VIEW: What's going on in the military right now with regard to what's occurred? Do many military higher-ups know this, and if so what's their position?

Intel source: (unintelligible)

TOP_VIEW: Excuse me?

Intel source: I said some do know and some don't. Some wouldn't believe it, just like many citizens wouldn't believe it. There are certainly lots of conflict going on at the upper levels of the military right now between people aware of the true facts.

TOP_VIEW: What about yourself?

Intel source: I consider myself to be a patriotic American who believes strongly in the Constitution. I'll do whatever is in my power to uphold and defend those principles, and so will many others.

TOP_VIEW: Well that's something I wanted to get to. The primary motivation for an atrocity of this magnitude would seem to be to soften up the country for some serious curtailment of civil liberties, in the name of protecting us from such "terrorist" attacks. I've likened it to Hitler's burning of the Reichstag in Germany.

Intel source: That's a good comparison. (Unintelligible)... one of the main reasons the action was carried out Tuesday. There's also other agendas having to do with control of the Middle East oil fields, and things related to that (issue).

TOP_VIEW: Well, are people such as yourself in any way prepared to, or able to, oppose these forces?

Intel source: Speaking for myself, I'd say there's a lot I'm prepared to do and will do. Speaking to you is one of those things. And there are many more like me.

TOP_VIEW: Now, how does the attack on the Pentagon figure into this whole thing?

Intel source: I can't discuss that at all.

TOP_VIEW: Can you some time in the future?

Intel source: Maybe. I think I'll need to sign off here soon.

TOP_VIEW: Is there anything else in particular you'd care to say, any advice or whatever?

Intel source: I'd say that our way of life is facing the biggest threat in our history, and the enemy is very much within. VERY MUCH WITHIN.

TOP_VIEW: So it boils down to: what happened on Tuesday was an inside job?

Intel source: Absolutely. All the way down the line and to a much higher level than most of you could ever imagine. There's a very intense struggle going on within our government like I said.

TOP_VIEW: It's a struggle we're all involved in, sir.

Intel source: That's quite true.

TOP_VIEW: It seems very clear to me that the Bush administration was way involved in the attacks. Would that be correct? They obviously want to bring about the exact kind of fundamental social restructuring that you mentioned.

Intel source: It's a good bet. Right now, it's best we cut this short.

TOP_VIEW: Good night and thank you very much for speaking with us.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This concluded our short but vastly significant interview with a patriotic Air Force intelligence officer.

Folks, we've heard it from the proverbial horse's mouth. Americans are in the most critical struggle in our entire history, and the enemy is a deceptive, malevolent and indeed demonic force deeply ensconced within the very fabric and structure of our federal government, and which also infests even our news and information sources, our entertainment, our schools and workplaces and many other aspects of our life and our society.

As our source stated: "the enemy is very much within."





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
Burning for days or weeks begs the question, how could that much be installed in the towers without anyone noticing?


I haven't seen any quantifying numbers regarding HOW MUCH thermite (or other secret military incendiaries) WOULD be required.

You say "THAT MUCH"... adoucette says "TONS & TONS".

You are asking me to explain how something could be moved into the basement surreptitiously? I personally don't see any problem with that.

Do you think black-opts spooks drive up wearing ninja costumes in a great black delivery semi with big white letters on the side saying THERMITE ? No, they drive up and either with complicity from security guards (need I remind you of who was in charge of security at WTC?)... or high-level clearances (that none dare question)... and they get a FREE PASS.

Quite simple really. No astounding mystery to me at all how it MIGHT have taken place.

Do you think this operation was put into effect the day or week before?

How do YOU KNOW preparations hadn't been going on for weeks? months? years?

The PNAC / neo-con wackos have been pushing their agenda for years. Yes, you are correct, I don't know either HOW LONG the preparations were actually being carried out prior to the date of Sept 11 2001.

That puts us in an equal position of ignorance regarding that factor (unless you have some inside information that I am not privvy to).

As you can NOT say factually that preparations MUST HAVE been carried out hurriedly immediately prior to 9/11, then your implied 'impossibility' is not backed up by any substantiating evidence to support your incredulity regarding this factor... and it is quite plausible to speculate that there are dozens of ways they MAY have moved incendiaries into the basement.

You claim to be looking for 'credible evidence' of the truth, when in actual fact you will NEVER allow yourself to even consider plausible possibilities (which MAY explain the abundant anomalies)...

Instead (as I see it) you demand 'signed documents' from security guards (or others) who allowed such materials to be imported...

(I refer to that as DEMANDING the IMPOSSIBLE - they don't exist, I can assure you)...

and I have NO DOUBT whatsoever that even IF such a document was put into evidence you would find a thousand ways to attempt to discredit even such black & white documents.

You are hopeless. You claim to only seek the Truth, but reject all plausible alternatives to your 'belief' which you have absolutely no evidence to support.

You seem to be saying... "It IS IMPOSSIBLE to import the required amounts"... yet offer no quantitative amounts such as WOULD be required to accomplish the job, and offer no proof of anything as to HOW importing such imaginary quantities would be IMPOSSIBLE.

I said... the odor of thermite (if it was mixed with sulphur) would also be mixed with OTHER stenches such as burning / rotting corpses (apologies for such graphics - but they can not be discounted)

Answer by YID...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
Burning for days or weeks begs the question, how could that much be installed in the towers without anyone noticing?


I haven't seen any quantifying numbers regarding HOW MUCH thermite (or other secret military incendiaries) WOULD be required.

You say "THAT MUCH"... adoucette says "TONS & TONS".

You are asking me to explain how something could be moved into the basement surreptitiously? I personally don't see any problem with that.

Do you think black-opts spooks drive up wearing ninja costumes in a great black delivery semi with big white letters on the side saying THERMITE ? No, they drive up and either with complicity from security guards (need I remind you of who was in charge of security at WTC?)... or high-level clearances (that none dare question)... and they get a FREE PASS.

Quite simple really. No astounding mystery to me at all how it MIGHT have taken place.

Do you think this operation was put into effect the day or week before?

How do YOU KNOW preparations hadn't been going on for weeks? months? years?

The PNAC / neo-con wackos have been pushing their agenda for years. Yes, you are correct, I don't know either HOW LONG the preparations were actually being carried out prior to the date of Sept 11 2001.

That puts us in an equal position of ignorance regarding that factor (unless you have some inside information that I am not privvy to).

As you can NOT say factually that preparations MUST HAVE been carried out hurriedly immediately prior to 9/11, then your implied 'impossibility' is not backed up by any substantiating evidence to support your incredulity regarding this factor... and it is quite plausible to speculate that there are dozens of ways they MAY have moved incendiaries into the basement.

You claim to be looking for 'credible evidence' of the truth, when in actual fact you will NEVER allow yourself to even consider plausible possibilities (which MAY explain the abundant anomalies)...

Instead (as I see it) you demand 'signed documents' from security guards (or others) who allowed such materials to be imported...

(I refer to that as DEMANDING the IMPOSSIBLE - they don't exist, I can assure you)...

and I have NO DOUBT whatsoever that even IF such a document was put into evidence you would find a thousand ways to attempt to discredit even such black & white documents.

You are hopeless. You claim to only seek the Truth, but reject all plausible alternatives to your 'belief' which you have absolutely no evidence to support.

You seem to be saying... "It IS IMPOSSIBLE to import the required amounts"... yet offer no quantitative amounts such as WOULD be required to accomplish the job, and offer no proof of anything as to HOW importing such imaginary quantities would be IMPOSSIBLE.

I said... the odor of thermite (if it was mixed with sulphur) would also be mixed with OTHER stenches such as burning / rotting corpses (apologies for such graphics - but they can not be discounted)

Answer by YID...

posted by YID
There would be NO rotting bodies at the WTC on the morning of 9/11. They have to be dead first. Did this chemical compound(which in your mind either is or isn't thermite and is or isn't diasite if it is thermite) have some type of delay on it that would cause it not to start reacting until those bodies staarted rotting?


You are contradicting yourself with your own sophistry. First you mention 'unspecified quantities' burning for weeks & weeks then turn around and say the bodies wouldn't be rotting on the First Day. Fair enough, however, your statement is made AFTER I have already plausibly stated that the thermite may VERY WELL NOT have been diasite (and therefore there would be no H2S on the first day or weeks and weeks after). Personally, I don't think there were many rotting corpses anyway... just small bits of flesh rotting which wouldn't have added significantly to the pervasive stench which WAS noticed from day 1.

QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
Your sophistry is invoking some type of explanation and when confronted with facts that contradict your theory, you simply change the theory.


Im sorry, you haven't presented ANY FACTS which contradict my theory. If you think so please point out where?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
Your sophistry is invoking some type of explanation and when confronted with facts that contradict your theory, you simply change the theory.


Im sorry, you haven't presented ANY FACTS which contradict my theory. If you think so please point out where?

Originally posted by YID
First it was diasite, then just powder thermite now it is an unknown thermite like chemical that burns more slowly.


I have never claimed that Diasite WAS been burning in the basement levels. As I recall the posts I have made regarding diasite was an attempt to explain the cutting of columns higher in the building to initiate the collapse and which does provide a plausible answer to the 'greatest mystery of the collapse' which frater has been posting lately - the anomalous vapourization of steel turning it into 'swiss cheese' ...

[You recall of course that NIST has now publicly stated the LIE that "No Steel WAS RECOVERED from WTC 7" --- it is precisely these anomalous vapourized / melted columns that they are trying to HIDE.]

Nevertheless, I still allow that diasite MAY have been used in the basement, and that the stench which most responders have mentioned May have been part of the obnoxious fumes released from the underground fires. There is NO QUESTION that there was a pervasive stench at ground zero --- your appeals that 'someone WOULD HAVE compared it to the smell of H2S is unconvincing --- there is NO Evidence at all to support that bias. Show me an account of some speaking of the stench at ground Zero, and where they ADDED 'But it Definately Didn't Smell Like Rotten Eggs'.

Foxx Quote : - If you were honestly debating this issue you would take the list of factors which I presented regarding the underground fires and show point by point how normal gravity-driven collapse scenarios can account for all those factors.

YID reply...

QUOTE
Which factors? The underground heat? I don't knwo but simply picking something out of the air seems to be your process in 'explaining' such things.


Don't play stupid, as if you don't recall my 'List of Factors'...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Which factors? The underground heat? I don't knwo but simply picking something out of the air seems to be your process in 'explaining' such things.


Don't play stupid, as if you don't recall my 'List of Factors'...

List of Factors, Again

Again, I contend that thermite fires account for ALL the following facts & parameters, (which no one from the gravity-driven collapse supporters has yet to account for in their nonsensical postulations)...

a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'

b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire

c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires

d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction

e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)

f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary

g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.

h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).

AND Additionally...

i - Thermite melts steel

j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the [/b]white smoke[/b] referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.


Until someone comes up with a better theory for the underground fires THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL the above factors, I'll have to stick with the Most Plausible One (as presented above - thermite... OR something else which has the same properties and fulfills All the above parameters.)


http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=51844

QUOTE

Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",[/u] even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.


The underlined links can be found at...

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",[/u] even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.


The underlined links can be found at...

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html

Originally posted by YID
Yet despite this you contend that it is now up to mme to prove that gravity collapse and available fuels could account for the underground fires.


You are one attempting to support the gravity-driven collapse. If you wish to support it, that's your problem to show plausibly HOW a gravity-driven collapse can account for all of the above. Quit skirting around the issue with nonsensical sophistry, and GET TO IT.

QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
He [b]{my father}
was 13 when the war ended. He may or may not have any inkling that it existed or not.


Well, now that's interesting Yidster - Your father was 13 in 1945. He fathered you when he was 14 did he? Tell us YID how old were YOU when Kennedy was assassinated. Methinks you are quite a bit younger that you pretend to be, and than most who are discussing these issues with first-hand knowledge.

When you attempt to address the above list of factors regarding the FACTS related to the underground fires at WTC and come up with SOME kind of plausible gravity-driven collapse scenario which can account for ALL of these, Let us know. Adoucette seems to have gone on holidays since I presented the same challenge to him.

Later.


Metamars I'm still looking for undoctored / unquestionable pics of this NIST alleged inward bowing - As far as I am concerned they are unsupportable from a structural point of view... the 2 bolts holding the trusses to the perimeter columns would have FAILED Long Before bowing 14" steel columns inwards. I tend to agree with Hoffman that the one picture presented by NIST MAY be an anomalous camera artifact due to heat distortion of the surrounding atmosphere (although I can't provide any supporting evidence of that so far).


yesitdid
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 9 2006, 09:29 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 9 2006, 09:24 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 9 2006, 09:09 PM)
Sorry about the double post.

People are being killed on the basis of a policy based on theories that violates physical laws. Endless wars have been declared on the same basis. After ww2 people were hanged for starting a war on fraudulent prentenses and for committing mass murder. Nowadays the criminals just have their way. This is just harrowing and staggering.

This is a political topic, not a physics topic.

Pictures of dead people are poltical statements.

If Islamic fundentalists did not want the USA bombing Iraq or any other majority Islamic state then they should not have declared war on the USA.

I agree that the war in Iraq, that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, al-Qeada was not linked to Saddam, that Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

Again though that is not a physics topic, period, end stop.

Nonsense.

Since the official fable clearly violates physical laws it stands obviously to reason that the rest of it, terrorists and all, is total bunk too.

Illogical reasoning will not make political statements any more scientific.

You are stating that the Iraq war was entered into partially because of the events of 9/11 which were caused by a black gov't op. Therefore a political statement is a valid one in proving that the physics of the situation invalidate the idea of a gravity collapse.

That means you are ignoring physics in favor of politics.
steve1957
Hi, my name is metemars and I won't be satisfied until I know for certain where every single electron and proton were at the time of the collapse.

I want to know the exact density of each and every steel beam, oxygen molecule within a 10 mile radius and the exact amount of fuel that each jet was carrying at the split second they hit the towers, NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES. mad.gif

But first I'll have to research the exact fuel octane and where the jet fuel came from, then I'll need to track down the oil refinery that produced the jet fuel, and the trucks that delivered the jet fuel.

I'm a smart man and I want a thorough investigation and I won't conclude anything until I get ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

Yours truly

metemars tongue.gif
yesitdid
metamars this site has some of the info you might want.
galdur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 9 2006, 10:11 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 9 2006, 09:29 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 9 2006, 09:24 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 9 2006, 09:09 PM)
Sorry about the double post.

People are being killed on the basis of a policy based on theories that violates physical laws. Endless wars have been declared on the same basis. After ww2 people were hanged for starting a war on fraudulent prentenses and for committing mass murder. Nowadays the criminals just have their way. This is just harrowing and staggering.

This is a political topic, not a physics topic.

Pictures of dead people are poltical statements.

If Islamic fundentalists did not want the USA bombing Iraq or any other majority Islamic state then they should not have declared war on the USA.

I agree that the war in Iraq, that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, al-Qeada was not linked to Saddam, that Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

Again though that is not a physics topic, period, end stop.

Nonsense.

Since the official fable clearly violates physical laws it stands obviously to reason that the rest of it, terrorists and all, is total bunk too.

Illogical reasoning will not make political statements any more scientific.

You are stating that the Iraq war was entered into partially because of the events of 9/11 which were caused by a black gov't op. Therefore a political statement is a valid one in proving that the physics of the situation invalidate the idea of a gravity collapse.

That means you are ignoring physics in favor of politics.

Nonsense.

laugh.gif

I really can´t help people who want to believe impossible things.
gordon
I still have not received your spreadsheet. Have you sent it?

Curious. Yes I've sent two copies. My address is gordonjross@yahoo.com Send me an e-mail and I'll send you a copy by return

Fly posting is going out at dead of night armed with a bucket of wallpaper paste and some political posters. Slap paste on wall, stick poster up, move on. Be as creative as you like on the slogans.
Gordon.
galdur
Those few here who have no understanding
of basic physics -as per their posts- need to read this:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Foxx
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 9 2006, 10:12 PM)
Hi, my name is metemars and I won't be satisfied until I know for certain where every single electron and proton were at the time of the collapse.

I want to know the exact density of each and every steel beam, oxygen molecule within a 10 mile radius and the exact amount of fuel that each jet was carrying at the split second they hit the towers, NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES.  mad.gif

But first I'll have to research the exact fuel octane and where the jet fuel came from, then I'll need to track down the oil refinery that produced the jet fuel, and the trucks that delivered the jet fuel.

I'm a smart man and I want a thorough investigation and I won't conclude anything until I get ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

Yours truly

metemars  tongue.gif

Gee, I hate to say this Steve1957, but you are Really Beginning to SOUND like another incarnation of the mysteriously morphing 'Schneibster' /'CHUCKLES' / 'CoMMOnseNSE' character.

Same Vitriolic attacks and insults (but coming from morphed view-points).

It has not escaped me that The Schneibster claims to be a Computer Programmer, and you seem to have such abilities far beyond mine (although that doesn't mean much because I'm pretty much 'computer illiterate')... maybe just co-incidence ...

but I am watching your psychological 'profile' (through your posted semantics) with increasing interest.

Please lay off with the emotional attacks.

There are SOME of US HERE, who are Definately not 'stoopid'.


Cheers

gordon
It's not that I particularly enjoy hurting people's feelings like metemar and gordon and foxx,


I don't think there is too much for you to worry about on that score.
Just one point though, it would probably best that you take a little more care when trying to paraphrase my posts. I try to choose my words with care because I know that I will have to stand by them. My word means a great deal to me. I do not suppose that in the Western world you have actually spoken to many people who have been jailed for saying what they mean and meaning what they say, but I know you have spoken to one. If you would like to attack something I have said, be my guest, but please do me the favour of ensuring that I have actually said it before you make your comment.

Gordon.
galdur
This is a Physics Professor, by definition someone
who knows Physics. Now, why don't you try to
refute him? tongue.gif

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
galdur
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

David Ray Griffin

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
yesitdid
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 9 2006, 10:47 PM)
This is a Physics Professor, by definition someone
who knows Physics. Now, why don't you try to
refute him?  tongue.gif

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

QUOTE
  Moreover, even if the fire had reached 1,300˚F, as Eagar supposes, that does not mean that any of the steel would have reached that temperature. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Put a fire to one part of a long bar of steel and the heat will quickly diffuse to the other parts and to any other pieces of steel to which that bar is connected


Then, again I ask two questions.

1) If steel is such a good conductor of heat then why can I put a rod of steel in a butane flame and get it orange hot at one end while manageing to hold it with my bare hands only 18 inches away? If I try the same thing with 1/2 copper tubing I will have to let go as it gets too hot to hold.

2) If steel is such a good conductor such that even a 1,300˚F fire could not have made the steel get hot enough to reduce its yeild strength significantly then why do structural engineers bother with the time and expense of putting fire insulation on the steel?

Does Griffin answer this question somewhere?

Griffin also ignores the fact that the fires were started much quicker than any other office fire. All other office fires have started small and grown. In the towers it is quite obvious that an accellerant , and a great quantity of it, was in play.

Griffin attempts to imply that all concerns have said that the impact damage was insignificant. This is not true. All that has been said is that the impact damage alone was far from enough to cause a danger of collapse. Having implied that the impact damage is insignificant he then goes on to state that no other all steel building ahs collapsed due to fire. He is therefore ignoring any effect that initial imapct damage would have done.

He goes on to give examples of other building fires but fails to mention what fire insulation was used on the structural steel. Loss of insulation was deemed a significant contribution to the collapses.

Next he speaks of the Cardington tests in Great Britain and how the test building suffered no collapse despite the steel reaching 800 C. Yet he fails to notice that in those tests there was never more than one room on fire at a time. He implies that the whole structure was on fire or that enough of it was to simulate what happened at the WTC but this is absolutely not the case.





galdur , have you read my post concerning ground effect? Do you wish to disagree with a WIGE craft expert and an aeronautical engineer?
galdur
The issue here is kerosene fire and massive steel beams
not butane fires and steel rods you can hold in your hand.

What you need is a steel column of several tons and some
tons of kerosene. Have fun trying to weaken it. biggrin.gif

I´m sure your information about the ground effect is just
as useless here as your physics. tongue.gif
frater plecticus
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 9 2006, 09:24 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 9 2006, 09:09 PM)
Sorry about the double post.

People are being killed on the basis of a policy based on theories that violates physical laws. Endless wars have been declared on the same basis. After ww2 people were hanged for starting a war on fraudulent pretenses and for committing mass murder. Nowadays the criminals just have their way. This is just harrowing and staggering.

This is a political topic, not a physics topic.

Pictures of dead people are political statements.

If Islamic fundamentalists did not want the USA bombing Iraq or any other majority Islamic state then they should not have declared war on the USA.

I agree that the war in Iraq, that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, al-Qeada was not linked to Saddam, that Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

Again though that is not a physics topic, period, end stop.

Nonsense.

Since the official fable clearly violates physical laws it stands obviously to reason that the rest of it, terrorists and all, is total bunk too.

Illogical reasoning will not make political statements any more scientific.

You are stating that the Iraq war was entered into partially because of the events of 9/11 which were caused by a black gov't op. Therefore a political statement is a valid one in proving that the physics of the situation invalidate the idea of a gravity collapse.

That means you are ignoring physics in favor of politics.


No it means that YOU (yesitdid) have been relegated into Arthur's classification category....

User posted image
the treasonous turd category...with another pathetic attempt to justify the unjustifiable...

yesitdid
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 9 2006, 11:11 PM)
The issue here is kerosene fire and massive steel beams
not butane fires and steel rods you can hold in your hand.

What you need is a steel column of several tons and some
kerosene. Have fun trying to weaken it. biggrin.gif

I am told that a hydrocarbon fire could not do it. Butane is a hydrocarbon.

My butane flame is about 3 inches long by about 1/2 inch diameter.

If we are to increase the size of the steel then we have to scale up the flame size as well. So don't slough it off as a puny butane flame would not affect a large steel column. I figure you are bright enough to know that is relevent.
galdur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 9 2006, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 9 2006, 11:11 PM)
The issue here is kerosene fire and massive steel beams
not butane fires and steel rods you can hold in your hand.

What you need is a steel column of several tons and some
kerosene. Have fun trying to weaken it.  biggrin.gif

I am told that a hydrocarbon fire could not do it. Butane is a hydrocarbon.

My butane flame is about 3 inches long by about 1/2 inch diameter.

If we are to increase the size of the steel then we have to scale up the flame size as well. So don't slough it off as a puny butane flame would not affect a large steel column. I figure you are bright enough to know that is relevent.

It's about massive steel beams and kerosene
fire not butane fire and a rod you can hold in
your hand. Get a grip.
yesitdid
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 9 2006, 11:12 PM)


No it means that YOU (yesitdid) have been relegated into Arthur's classification category....


I don't suppose I could be so lucky as to have this mean that you will ignore my posts from now on.

Mostly I ignore yours. I happened to notice my name as I scrolled through.

Have a nice life.
galdur
In fact all the world's kerosene couldn't have
weakened the steel in the towers noticeably
much less melted it. biggrin.gif
yesitdid
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 9 2006, 11:21 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 9 2006, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 9 2006, 11:11 PM)
The issue here is kerosene fire and massive steel beams
not butane fires and steel rods you can hold in your hand.

What you need is a steel column of several tons and some
kerosene. Have fun trying to weaken it.  biggrin.gif

I am told that a hydrocarbon fire could not do it. Butane is a hydrocarbon.

My butane flame is about 3 inches long by about 1/2 inch diameter.

If we are to increase the size of the steel then we have to scale up the flame size as well. So don't slough it off as a puny butane flame would not affect a large steel column. I figure you are bright enough to know that is relevent.

It's about massive steel beams and kerosene
fire not butane fire and a rod you can hold in
your hand. Get a grip.

Simply a matter of scale. Ok, you don't want to accept that this means anything then please answer question 2)

Even in the case of the much larger columns further down the tower they were also insulated to prevent fire from heating them. I have yet to get an explanation that satifies why this expense would be required if indeed the steel could redistribute the heat so efficiently.
yesitdid
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 9 2006, 11:32 PM)
In fact all the world's kerosene couldn't have
weakened the steel in the towers noticeably
much less melted it. biggrin.gif

Who here has stated that the fires onthose floors melted the columns?

Not me, I know that much. Not NIST or FEMA.
frater plecticus
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE


No it means that YOU (yesitdid) have been relegated into Arthur's classification category....


I don't suppose I could be so lucky as to have this mean that you will ignore my posts from now on.

Mostly I ignore yours. I happened to notice my name as I scrolled through.

Have a nice life.


I'm sure I will have a nice life. At least I'll get a good night's sleep tonight.

The real question is, did you recognize your picture ?
galdur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 9 2006, 11:32 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 9 2006, 11:21 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 9 2006, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 9 2006, 11:11 PM)
The issue here is kerosene fire and massive steel beams
not butane fires and steel rods you can hold in your hand.

What you need is a steel column of several tons and some
kerosene. Have fun trying to weaken it.  biggrin.gif

I am told that a hydrocarbon fire could not do it. Butane is a hydrocarbon.

My butane flame is about 3 inches long by about 1/2 inch diameter.

If we are to increase the size of the steel then we have to scale up the flame size as well. So don't slough it off as a puny butane flame would not affect a large steel column. I figure you are bright enough to know that is relevent.

It's about massive steel beams and kerosene
fire not butane fire and a rod you can hold in
your hand. Get a grip.

Simply a matter of scale. Ok, you don't want to accept that this means anything then please answer question 2)

Even in the case of the much larger columns further down the tower they were also insulated to prevent fire from heating them. I have yet to get an explanation that satifies why this expense would be required if indeed the steel could redistribute the heat so efficiently.

All scycrapers are massively overengineered
and incredibly redundant. Hydrocarbon fires
burn at 8-900 degrees maximum at the best
conditions which aren´t to be found in such
structures. However hotter fires are conceivable
as you may now.

These structures are overengineered for the
impossible and as a result they don´t fall down.
In the history of steel high-rises there have been
no collapses from fire, Sept. 11th included.
galdur
I'm sure some of you think that the towers were
flimsy structures but unfortunately for you that
was not the case at all. They were built to withstand
winds of 140 miles/hr. (they were situated close to the
sea where you can expect high wind) and the impact
of a Boeing 707 (since they dwarfed the surroundings
this was a natural precaution).
frater plecticus
The punishment for treason was typically an extended and especially cruel death —used to suppress any resistance to government policy. This remained unreformed until the 19th century. Previously, any method (in theory) could be legally used to carry out the death penalty —most popular in the middle-ages were hanging, drawing and quartering.

user posted image

George shows off his most recent, and highly successful, campaign slogan

3rd time lucky....

SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 – WHAT A REAL PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE SAID

QUOTE

A real president would have glanced at Cicero’s orations against Catiline, with which that orator had gone into the Roman Senate to stop the impending coup d’etat of the bankrupt aristocrat Lucius Sergius Catilina in 63 BC, who had planned to seize power through a massacre of Roman political leaders. He would have been mindful of General de Gaulle’s 1962 speech in which he expressed his determination to defeat the coup attempt of four fascist generals in Algiers.



"My fellow citizens:Tonight I would like to present, as promised, a progress report on the investigations into the events of September 11, investigations which have been the main task of your government over the past several weeks. The tidings I bring you this evening are very grave, and they are related to the tempestuous events of the last few days which are known to you in whole or in part.

As many of you may know, during the morning of 9/11 the White House received a telephone call saying, “Angel is next.” “Angel” was the top-secret code word designating my official aircraft, Air Force One, so this was a threat to shoot down AirForce One. It was also something more: as I realized immediately,it was quite possible that this telephone call had indeed come from the authors of the 9/11 terror attacks. If that was so, there existed the definite possibility that this group, whoever they were, also had access to other top-secret code words used by our government. This meant that there was imminent danger that the terrorist group might possess the code words and related signals that could be used to target thermonuclear ballistic missiles on targets in foreign countries – or even here at home. A duplicate of the briefcase known as “the football,” which follows me everywhere, might be in the hands of the plotters. I decided at once to proceed as quickly as possible to the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command in Nebraska with a small force of bodyguards for the purpose of countermanding, by the immediate physical presence of the commander in chief, any and all illegal attack orders that might be issued by the rogue terrorist network which had so plainly declared war on our country. My intent was to assume direct personal control over the nuclear deterrent forces of this country, wherever they might be located.

During my flight to Nebraska, I received a phone call which presented this threat in the most concrete form. The call came from a man who identified himself as the spokesman for a secret organization of clandestine operatives and special forces – clearly a subversive and insurrectionary group acting as a tool for a coterie of very powerful, wealthy, and ruthless persons. This spokesman told me that his organization had orchestrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as a means of reversing the inexorable decline of American power in the world – a process which I and my elected predecessors had been wholly negligent in allowing, he asserted. He also demanded that I immediately make a televised public statement identifying al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Afghanistan, and Iraq as those responsible for the terror attacks, and announcing our government’s plans to invade and occupy these two countries. Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, he added, might have to come later. If I failed to accept this ultimatum, the conspirators were determined to use the nuclear launch code words in their possession to destroy Cairo, Baghdad, Teheran, Rabat, Tunis, Karachi, Jakarta,Damascus, Pyongyang, Riyad, Havana, and possibly other cities. That would start 100 years of war of civilizations, they told me, and once it had started, nothing could stop it. I told this spokesman that he and his group, in addition to being guilty of high treason, were courting suicide. The Russian Federation might interpret the missile firings as the beginning of a US first strike against Russian targets, and might respond by initiating procedures for launch under attack, in an attempt to use their nuclear assets against us before they were destroyed on the ground. The People’s Republic of China might respond in the same way. These countries might also conclude that our government had been taken over by madmen, and that their only hope of safety might lie in the use of military means against us. The spokesman for the group of plotters replied that those dangers were real, but that it was up to me to avoid this danger by granting the demands of the terrorist controllers, which came down to US attacks on Afghanistan, and Iraq, with the overthrow of the government of Saudi Arabia likely along the way. The terror group, he boasted, welcomed the bloody global conflict that I seemed to fear, and even regarded the prospect of world war engulfing this planet as preferable to the relative decline of the United States for which he said I and those like me were responsible.

At this moment, our country faced the greatest danger in our entire history. To accept the ultimatum of the plotters and to wage war against their target list of Arab and Islamic states would have cast the United States adrift on an ocean of blackmail, lies, and adventures. Blackmailers always escalate their demands, and the addiction to terrorism of the victorious criminal network might have poisoned our national life for decades, or even for centuries. If I had capitulated, I would have been a puppet of the plotters for as long as I remained in office, indeed for the rest of my life. On the other side, the danger of world war was immediate. I decided that the only honorable course coherent with my oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution was to defy the terrorists. At this point we had reached the SAC headquarters in Nebraska. I terminated my conversation with the spokesman for the plotters.

At this point, I activated several units of the Secret Service and Army intelligence under hand-picked officers whose constitutional loyalty I knew I could trust. I briefed them on what I knew so far, and gave them the task of finding the rogue terror network and rooting it out. These fine patriotic men and women went to work at once, and within 72 hours the main outlines of the plot were evident. Let me sum up what we have learned so far. A group of al Qaeda operatives, manipulated by a cabal of rogue CIA case officers, had chosen September 11 to hijack several aircraft, force them to land, and use the passengers as hostages to extort the liberation of certain prisoners being held in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Among these al Qaeda operatives were several double agents, also under the control of rogue elements in our own intelligence community. These were dissolute and evil persons, who had been trained using the infrastructure left over from the Iran-contra affair.

Air defense that day was completely absent, in part because of four air exercises which were taking place at the same time in various parts of North America. A number of officers in critical positions at NORAD, its regional office in Rome, New York, and in the FAA appear to have been party to the plot. By a kind of collective inertia, they ignored the well-known and long-established standard operating procedures which govern the cooperation of FAA and NORAD, and were able to misdirect our few remaining fighter interceptors, out over the Atlantic Ocean in one case. More arrests are imminent as a result of ongoing investigations in this area.

What the al Qaeda operatives apparently did not know was that the aircraft they had chosen to hijack had been equipped with a new technology making it possible to seize control of these aircraft and operate them by remote control from a command center on the ground. It was this new technology, and not the dubious skills of the hijackers, which allowed the planes to hit their targets with such precision.

But even direct hits by the two planes could not have been enough to bring down the towers. According to the information we have developed, the collapse of World Trade Center buildings one, two,and seven was the direct result of controlled demolition the result of explosive charges which had been placed in these buildings over the previous days and weeks by the terror network, who infiltrated the buildings in the guise of cleaning and security personnel. We have not yet been able to solve all the problems posed by the collapse of the twin towers, since energy sources appear to have been at work which go beyond the realm of today’s conventional technology. I will have more to report on this later. In the meantime, I regret to report that I have had to order the arrest of the Mayor of New York, who repeatedly attempted to bring about the destruction of evidence at the crime scene.

As for the Pentagon, it was struck by a US Air Force cruise missile fired from an aircraft above West Virginia, and not by one of the hijacked airliners. We have not yet been able to determine what happened to American flight 77, and we call on citizens to come to our aid in this matter. The launch of the cruise missile was the work of an entire Air Force unit in Ohio, and these traitors have all been taken into custody.

The airplane that crashed in Shanksville was cynically shot down through the actions of a rebel mole placed in a highly sensitive position at NORAD. This mole was aware that the passengers had retaken control of the aircraft from the lightly armed hijackers, and realized that the interrogation of the hijackers on board would have revealed critical dimensions of the real plot in which the hijackers, although certainly acting with criminal intent, were ultimately mere expendable pawns. The NORAD mole also feared that an examination of the aircraft might reveal the presence of the remote control technology, which had for some reason failed to function. Accordingly, the mole cynically directed jet interceptors to destroy this airplane, even though it was far away from any target of interest to the hijackers.

Several FBI officials and agents have been indicted for obstruction of justice; they have been accused of destroying security camera tapes at the Pentagon, and intimidating witnesses at the Pentagon and in Shanksville. Members of the FBI crime lab and the NTSB team have been discovered attempting to sabotage the cockpit voice recorders of the planes in question; the recordings we have heard are consistent with the account of the 9/11 events I have just described.

Sadly, I must address the three mysterious suicides from the highest ranks of our own government which have caused so much speculation over the past several days.The vice president was found dead in his bunker at Site R last Thursday; the coroner has ruled this a suicide, and has established that the cause of death was a potassium cyanide pill. The same finding has been delivered in the case of the former deputy secretary of defense some hours later on that same day. The death of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by a gunshot wound to the head in the Pentagon at around that same time has also been ruled a suicide. I can only confirm that arrest warrants for all three had been issued by a federal grand jury empanelled to investigate the tragic events of September 11.The mutiny of the Delta Force battalion based near Fort Bragg, North Carolina, has been quelled by loyal troops and planes. The appeal of the rebel commander for a military rebellion against the legal government and for a military coup has been ignored.As you may also know, a top former anti-terror official and several other high officials of the CIA and FBI have been missing for over two weeks, and are presumed to have fled abroad. I can confirm that arrest warrants have been issued for these persons. A number of journalists have also disappeared, and this may also be related to the recent upheaval. I can assure you that our constitutional procedures are just as vigorous as they have ever been, that habeas corpus remains alive, well, and in full force. We have no secret prisons and no secret prisoners, and I will tolerate none. Our open courts continue to function,and they will continue to do so.

We have uncovered complicity between the rogue network in this country and a number of foreign intelligence agencies. One of these is the British MI-6. After the raid by Scotland Yard on the headquarters of MI-6 in Oxford Circus, and after the resignation of Mr. Blair, I look forward to working with the new Labour Party prime minister to eradicate any remaining insurrectionary elements. We continue to observe the situation in several other countries we believe may have been involved in the 9/11 plot. I regret that General Sharon has refused to cooperate, and I invite the Congress to consider whatresponse may be required.

I would like to thank President Putin of the Russian Federation and the leadership of the People’s Republic of China for their wisdom and restraint, especially during the morning of 9/11, when the rebel network engaged in visible preparations for a nuclear launch. I am certain that the great powers, having weathered this storm, will be able to return to the path of confidence building measures at our summit next week. More details will be announced as soon as practicable. In conclusion, let me say a few words about the state of the world.

I do not assert that terrorism is a spontaneous outgrowth of poverty and misery. In fact, I assert the opposite: terrorism is usually organized by an outside agency, often by a government or a network operating inside a government. But it is certainly true that poverty and misery provide the indispensable environment in which terrorist groups can recruit, or be created by intelligence agencies. In today’s world, there are about 2 billion people who are attempting to get by on less than $1 per day. There are some 600 million homeless – that is equal to about the entire population of Europe. About one and one half billion people do not have clean water to drink. With about one billion people unemployed, the unemployment rate in our world is about 33%, about one third. When that happened in our own country during the 1930s, we called that a great depression,and we must therefore acknowledge the existence of a world economic depression of unprecedented severity today. Two thirds of the people in the world – 65% -- have never made a phone call. About 40% do not have access to electricity for household use; I would call that a clear need for rural and urban electrification. Every day in this world of ours, some 40,000 human beings perish from malnutrition and from easily treated diseases like diarrhea. Another 40,000 lose their lives each month as the result of warfare, all of which is absolutely futile and which has often been cynically fomented by foreign economic interests; I am thinking here of the crisis in Africa most specifically. In Africa, the standard of living of the average family has declined by 20% over the last twenty years. Eighty-nine countries are now worse off than they were at the beginning of the 1990s. 175 million people leave their home countries every year in the desperate search for jobs and food – about 3% of humanity. The price of a human slave on the slave markets of southern Europe at this very moment is about 4,000 euros. In the midst of all this, the two hundred fifty-eight richest persons in the world own more in the way of assets and other property than the poorest 3 billion persons. When two hundred fifty eight own more than half of the human population of the world, I hope you will agree with me that such a world cannot be stable. Yet, this is the world that lies before us. I plan to use my powers as president to ameliorate this situation with every means at my disposal, and I call upon the Congress and upon all citizens to support these steps for a new world economic order that will be more just, more equitable, more prosperous, and more dynamic.

We have now been tested in the crucible of a brutal crisis. From this experience we must take renewed devotion to our best values. The decade of globalization has been revealed as a colossal failure, for ourselves as well as for others. We must find a better, more humane, more equitable way of organizing the affairs of this planet. To do this, we must work closely with almost two hundred sovereign states, and work out the details with them, since every country has an inherent right to economic development, science, technology, and dignity. The old imperialism denied these, and the old imperialism is now on the junkheap of history. In the days to come, my two lodestars will be peace and economic development, seen as the two sides of the same coin. Our world has turned over several times in the past month, but I am more certain than ever that I can count on the support of the American people in getting the world back on the right track. I ask you once again to remember the victims of the recent tragedy in your prayers. Good night."


Webster Tarpley’s 911 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA
Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'galdur'
This is a Physics Professor, by definition someone
who knows Physics. Now, why don't you try to
refute him? tongue.gif

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Thanks, galdur... it seems that Jones keeps updating his site with new information that I haven't seen before.

I will have to pay more attention ... and thanks for bringing this to our attention.

user posted image

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'galdur'
This is a Physics Professor, by definition someone
who knows Physics. Now, why don't you try to
refute him? tongue.gif

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Thanks, galdur... it seems that Jones keeps updating his site with new information that I haven't seen before.

I will have to pay more attention ... and thanks for bringing this to our attention.

user posted image

We see from the photograph above that solid metal slag existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.)  The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum, and these metals can evidently be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below) temperatures.  However, the observed hot specimen could be structural steel (from the building) or iron (from a thermite reaction) or a combination of the two.  Additional photographs of the hot metal could provide further information and advance the research.

The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the solidified slag with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York:


User posted image

QUOTE
The abundance of iron (as opposed to aluminum) in this slag is indicated by the reddish rust observed.  When a sample is obtained, a range of characterization techniques will quickly give us information we seek.  X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) will yield the elemental composition, and electron energy-loss spectroscopy will tell us the elements found in very small amounts that were undetectable with XEDS.  Electron-backscattered diffraction in the scanning electron microscope will give us phase information; the formation of certain precipitates can tell us a minimum temperature the melt must have reached.  We will endeavor to obtain and publish these data, whatever they reveal.


Emphasis mine - reminds me of Arthurs scoffing of 'Why is there no evidence of iron slag ---

Question answered.

******************


PS -

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The abundance of iron (as opposed to aluminum) in this slag is indicated by the reddish rust observed.  When a sample is obtained, a range of characterization techniques will quickly give us information we seek.  X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) will yield the elemental composition, and electron energy-loss spectroscopy will tell us the elements found in very small amounts that were undetectable with XEDS.  Electron-backscattered diffraction in the scanning electron microscope will give us phase information; the formation of certain precipitates can tell us a minimum temperature the melt must have reached.  We will endeavor to obtain and publish these data, whatever they reveal.


Emphasis mine - reminds me of Arthurs scoffing of 'Why is there no evidence of iron slag ---

Question answered.

******************


PS -

Originally posted by YID
galdur , have you read my post concerning ground effect? Do you wish to disagree with a WIGE craft expert and an aeronautical engineer?


wrt to YID's 'supposed knowledge' re: 'Ground-effect' and the 'quote' he is currently using... I had this out with YID on another forum a couple of years ago.

He is utilizing sophistry and misinterpretations of experts in this area when he clearly has NO understanding himself in this field.

Here is a picture of the Ocean Mirage GEV / POC model I designed, built and tested back in 1984-86... (has the YID ever designed & built a so much as a 'birdhouse' in HIS life?)

User posted image

It was clearly demonstrated through that discussion between YID and I, through the Worlds Leading Expert on GE (outside of Russia) Hanno Fisher (of Germany) whom I e-mailed at the time that HE was of the opinion that any plane CAN NOT be operated in GE at such heights (at full speed) and such trajectory as the Pentagon Plane allegedly hit.

Nevertheless, GE is an extremely complex phenomena, and I (for one) DO believe that a large plane hit the pentagon, (notwithstanding the size of the 'hole').

Personally, I think Eric Bart offers the most plausible explanation on his site as to the 'alleged plane'... check out his site at...

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/index.html

In my opinion, the Pentagon incident is quite separate from the WTC incident, and is riddled with purposeful disinformation --- a veritable 'mine-field' where one must walk very carefully.

However, I feel that IF you and YID wish to banter about Pentagon anomalies it should be kept on the Pentagon thread. I realize that YOU are not primarily responsible for bringing those issues to this thread, and this is more directed to YID. Ground-Effect has NOTHING to do with THIS thread. Thank You.

Cheers


galdur
Enjoy Foxx.
galdur
Well Foxx, the guy uses butane fire and a hand held
steel rod in comparison to massive steel beams and
a kerosene fire so one can imagine that his ground
effect comparisons are just as useless.

Anyway the main point is that since the official version
of the Pentagon incident is totally detached from reality
and simply refuted by the ground effect it stands to
reason that they would disregard natural law as the towers
were concerned. And of course they did.
Foxx
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 10 2006, 12:14 AM)
Well Foxx, the guy uses butane fire and a hand held
steel rod in comparison to massive steel beams and
a kerosene fire so one can imagine that his ground
effect comparisons are just as useless.

Heh... believe me... I know what you mean... the YID is quite the sophistry dancing lizard biggrin.gif
galdur
In any debate it's best to always identify the basics
and stick relentlessly to them. Just watch contentless
people squirm around those basics. biggrin.gif
steve1957
galdur,

keep up the good work of logic, facts, true physics and common sense, but remember that kind of talk might get you kicked off the board.

Foxx, no hard feelings between you, me, metemars, gordon, brian, and even the Nazi's on this board, including arthur, yesdidit, common sense etc.

Nobody knows how much time we have left on this planet, so I feel moved to get things out in the open ASAP.

Even if metemars has some good intentions about investigating into more analysis, the problem is we're ruining out of time, and there comes a point when you gotta take the best information you have and go with it.

When I say we're running out of time that could mean anything. There could be a nuclear war next week or some other serious disaster, or who knows maybe the rest of the world goes on, but one of us gets hit by a mack truck or a stray bullet from a gang war, or mad cow hamburger.

Life is too short to worry about these things, but because our time on earth is limited, it seems to me that we don;t have much of it to waste on unnecessary things.

Maybe I'm overly cynical because of all the fraud, waste and abuse of the government, such as the 9/11 commission and the billions spent on government research projects, $400. hammers and thousand dollar toilet seats, while people are starving to death.

If the fraud waste and abuse department was legitimate they'd have to arrest the entire government, including the Pentagon, but the point is we just don't have that much time to waste.

It's time to move forward.

P.S. One thing I do appreciate with the people on this board, even the Nazi's, at least they keep their language fairly clean, which is better than a lot of message boards
galdur
They can kick me off the board no problem.

I'll just go to the next one. biggrin.gif
Mel
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 9 2006, 09:32 PM)
Well you can start by being honest with yourself and others and stop pretending to be sincere about wanting my advise, when in fact my advise is the last thing you want.

But if I were to give you my advise, it would be to dig deep down in your heart and seek as much truth and wisdom as you can, and then take it from there.

Remember, I'm not God, and I don't have an exclusive on God, we're all His creation and He lives within all of us. You wouldn't be breathing if the life of God wasn't flowing through you.

So don't worry so much about asking me what to do, but rather ask your Maker, your just as close to Him as anyone else.

You're right there. I was not being sincere asking for your advice, simply because I predicted ahead of time that you'd have none to offer. Your response indicates as much.

Presumably you've asked 'your maker' what to do. What has he instructed you? Waste your time abusing people on threads like this one, or did 'He' give you some CONCRETE things to do.

No more cop-outs. WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO BRING THOSE RESPONSIBLE (who's that?) to JUSTICE?
steve1957
QUOTE
Mel,

WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO BRING THOSE RESPONSIBLE (who's that?) to JUSTICE?


Is this a riddle or a trick question?

OK, I give up, you tell me.
Galdur Finally getting a answer
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 10 2006, 01:24 AM)
QUOTE
Mel,

WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO BRING THOSE RESPONSIBLE (who's that?) to JUSTICE?


Is this a riddle or a trick question?

OK, I give up, you tell me.

Waste your time abusing people on threads like this one.
Coastal
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 10 2006, 12:04 AM)

QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
galdur , have you read my post concerning ground effect? Do you wish to disagree with a WIGE craft expert and an aeronautical engineer?


wrt to YID's 'supposed knowledge' re: 'Ground-effect' and the 'quote' he is currently using... I had this out with YID on another forum a couple of years ago.

He is utilizing sophistry and misinterpretations of experts in this area when he clearly has NO understanding himself in this field.

Here is a picture of the Ocean Mirage GEV / POC model I designed, built and tested back in 1984-86... (has the YID ever designed & built a so much as a 'birdhouse' in HIS life?)

User posted image

It was clearly demonstrated through that discussion between YID and I, through the Worlds Leading Expert on GE (outside of Russia) Hanno Fisher (of Germany) whom I e-mailed at the time that HE was of the opinion that any plane CAN NOT be operated in GE at such heights (at full speed) and such trajectory as the Pentagon Plane allegedly hit.

Nevertheless, GE is an extremely complex phenomena, and I (for one) DO believe that a large plane hit the pentagon, (notwithstanding the size of the 'hole').

Personally, I think Eric Bart offers the most plausible explanation on his site as to the 'alleged plane'... check out his site at...

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/index.html

In my opinion, the Pentagon incident is quite separate from the WTC incident, and is riddled with purposeful disinformation --- a veritable 'mine-field' where one must walk very carefully.

However, I feel that IF you and YID wish to banter about Pentagon anomalies it should be kept on the Pentagon thread. I realize that YOU are not primarily responsible for bringing those issues to this thread, and this is more directed to YID. Ground-Effect has NOTHING to do with THIS thread. Thank You.

Cheers

Translation from the Foxxeese:

"YID was right in our discussion about ground effect."

"I was wrong."

"Please do not bring up this subject here and remind me of that fact."

"Err.. I build model boats and stuff."

<sprinkle in a few uses of the words 'obfuscate' and 'sophistry' and there you have it> wink.gif
metamars
QUOTE
 

Foxx::

Metamars I'm still looking for undoctored / unquestionable pics of this NIST alleged inward bowing - As far as I am concerned they are unsupportable from a structural point of view... the 2 bolts holding the trusses to the perimeter columns would have FAILED Long Before bowing 14" steel columns inwards. I tend to agree with Hoffman that the one picture presented by NIST MAY be an anomalous camera artifact due to heat distortion of the surrounding atmosphere (although I can't provide any supporting evidence of that so far).


IIRC, Hoffman's complaint concerned pictures of parts of a tower with outward bowing, not inward bowing.

Frankly, the picture he showed to illustrate his complaint looked a little phony to me, especially in the corner. However, as Hoffman tends to be careful, I imagine he cross-checked the NIST photo with other sources.

Even so, I'd like to see those sources.

steve1957
QUOTE
Waste your time abusing people on threads like this one.


Well, if that's how you feel then you should contact C.P.S. (Child Protective Services) and report me for child abuse.

I know the TRUTH can be painful, but I never thought of it as abuse.


Foxx
What to do? ... What to do !!! ???

Metamars has made some valid suggestions.

I'm posting from Canada. I know that frater plecticus is posting from Spain... and I suspect others are posting from other foreign countries...

Heh, maybe if you want to get real paranoid, maybe Al Queda has infiltrated all these 9/11 threads and are posting from Iraq or Afghanistan, to 'fool' you dumb US Americans ???

What does it take to overthrow an unjust regime?

Sure money can help, but you can't count on my support there (in my present financial difficulties - thanks to 9/11).

It seems to me that the ONLY ONES reaping 'Rewards' from 9/11 are the US military-industrial B'tards.

Do I (as a Canadian, OR any other foreigners) have any voice or influence as to events within the US? - NO !

Our Whole Existence is WHOLLY DEPENDANT upon 'waking-up' the mass sleeping giant of sheeple in the USofA and to make them AWARE of the situation.

In my opinion, we ARE DOING THAT just by posting on forums such as this ...(which have become the new 'Voice of Freedom' which circumvents the MSN controlled propaganda).

Although you True Patriots within the US are maligned daily by 'speaking out' in the free press (the internet which connects us ALL)... YOU ARE doing your part to Support Truth & Justice, (just by speaking-out constantly on this issue).

I'm afraid (in REALITY) ONLY Americans Can CORRECT this problem which faces ALL of us.

It is Good to think of ways to bring more academia into these questions, but --- don't you see--- that is already happening. Patience, people...

NONE of us, (til our dying day) will 'forget 9/11'

This issue will NOT be solved tommorrow.

WE can NOT 'Speed Up the process' to bring the TRUTH... (the Messiah) back.

We can ONLY hope & pray for that day when Peace will return (with Vengeance against THOSE who oppose Peace and Reason).

My apologies if you think I'm sounding like a 'preacher'.

In my opinion we need to just keep marching along refuting the BS by the propagandists who oppose us.

NIST's documents are ALL proposed for 'public discussion', and be assured that they ARE paying attention to ALL public discussions (in forums such as this).

Do you think they added the 'disclaimer' that "NIST finds NO evidence of explosive demolitions", because they HONESTLY checked out those possibilites THEMSELVES ???

NOT A CHANCE ! They are watching everything that 'we' develop as 'independant investigators' and MUST answer 'somehow' to the information being developed.

Remember how Kevin Ryan's expose threw 'them' for a loop... and they had to postpone their public proclamation?... (while they 'revised' their 'draft document' to reflect the Truth that Ryan spoke --- albeit through sophistry)???

It may have destroyed Ryan's 'career', but was a great victory in the Info-Wars we are engaged in.

Keep up the good work in refuting the nonsensical sophistries of the 'gravity-driven collapse supporters', ESPECIALLY those of you who ARE US citizens, and carry on refuting their unscientific nonsense.


Later
Foxx
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 10 2006, 02:17 AM)
QUOTE
 

Foxx::

Metamars I'm still looking for undoctored / unquestionable pics of this NIST alleged inward bowing - As far as I am concerned they are unsupportable from a structural point of view... the 2 bolts holding the trusses to the perimeter columns would have FAILED Long Before bowing 14" steel columns inwards. I tend to agree with Hoffman that the one picture presented by NIST MAY be an anomalous camera artifact due to heat distortion of the surrounding atmosphere (although I can't provide any supporting evidence of that so far).


IIRC, Hoffman's complaint concerned pictures of parts of a tower with outward bowing, not inward bowing.

Frankly, the picture he showed to illustrate his complaint looked a little phony to me, especially in the corner. However, as Hoffman tends to be careful, I imagine he cross-checked the NIST photo with other sources.

Even so, I'd like to see those sources.

Can you post a link to the picture you are referring to, metamars?

Maybe I am getting confused with the famous (infamous) NIST picture of inward bowing?

Thanks


Foxx
QUOTE
posted by THE QUACK (aka Coastal)
"Err.. I build model boats and stuff."

Right... and other stuff... like...

User posted image

Got any pictures of the 'birdhouses' you have designed & built there Quack-a-Doodle???
Guest
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 10 2006, 02:39 AM)
QUOTE
posted by THE QUACK (aka Coastal)
"Err.. I build model boats and stuff."

Right... and other stuff... like...

User posted image

Got any pictures of the 'birdhouses' you have designed & built there Quack-a-Doodle???



Broke, huh?

Come on down. I've got a friend who owns a surfboard shop.

Might be able to get you a job as a board shaper.....

......if you're good enough.

newton
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 9 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Jan 9 2006, 08:09 PM)
i agree!

the most obvious thing is the anthrax from us military labs.
the most obvious thing is tower seven.
the most obvious thing is repeated freudian slips by the conspirators.
the most obvious thing is a twenty dollar american bill folded like an paper airplane(great 'mad' art, although it's SUPER-EVIL!).
the most obvious thing is the energy sink.
the most obvious thing is the destruction of american freedom by those sworn to protect it.
the most obvious thing is media complicity.
the most obvious thing is the money, insider trading, insurance rewards...
the most obvious thing is that ALL this is OBVIOUS and IRREFUTABLE.

now what?

Assuming you don't have a budget for a multi-disciplinary effort, such as that called for by Professor Jones, you have to pick your spots.

You have mixed together things having nothing to do with engineering or physics, with engineering and physics related items.


well, like you said. tower seven is dead obvious, and therefore doesn't really require dough for a study. it just needs an advertising campaign.

in fact, that is ALL 'our' side needs, in my opinion. just a good ad campaign, pointing out some of the bigger dots in the big picture.

i brought in non-physics things for steve1957's sake, i guess, and to point out that the truth is already 'out there', and it is wider acceptance of the truth that is needed, not trying to convince the eggheads in the sand.

i know this is titled 'basic physics', but how about some really advanced physics, like the way our intent shapes our observations? i wonder to what degree this is true. is it a case of maya, the illusory veil that we see as reality? can one person make changes in the maya, merely by willing it?

i think the ancient mystery schools are all over it. human alchemy.

how is it that the cadeus is a model of the helical structure of dna?

the 'flower of life' and the 'seed of life' are of the same geometry as crystals and platonic solids, and embody the phi ratio, which is the fractal kernel of all life, and perhaps even, reality as we know it(even galaxies emody the phi ratio).

the shadows are way ahead of 'us' when it comes to this kind of thinking. human sociology can be engineered nearly as precisely as a building. there will be some flawed material in any sytructure, or slightly off-spec execution, but the buildings go up, and for the most part, looks just like the blueprint.

i think it is good to get into little science and look at all the minute details, but it is also good to really 'see' the enviroment in which events are fostered. phyiscs is all about cause and effect, no?

anyway, i think you're doing a great job with your brain. it appears to work very well, and you certainly are far more advanced than i in physics and programming. i HAVE to stick to basics, because it's all i have.

and in that light, most people won't even blink an eye if you tell them tower seven fell at the rate of freefall in a vacuum. they are too busy thinking what to buy next, and whether brad and jennifer will have a threesome with lara croft.

i guess recently, i've realised that the flavour of the moment is all that counts in our present information matrix, and until realising bush is hitler is the flavour of the moment, 'we' have to be resigned to doing legwork.

much like HAS been going on here. this is one of the better threads on the web, despite the frequent derailments, imo.

here's one of my favourite movie quotes, from, 'ghost in the shell'....

"overspecialise, and you breed in weakness." (refering to societies)

metamars
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 10 2006, 02:29 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 10 2006, 02:17 AM)
QUOTE
 

Foxx::

Metamars I'm still looking for undoctored / unquestionable pics of this NIST alleged inward bowing - As far as I am concerned they are unsupportable from a structural point of view... the 2 bolts holding the trusses to the perimeter columns would have FAILED Long Before bowing 14" steel columns inwards. I tend to agree with Hoffman that the one picture presented by NIST MAY be an anomalous camera artifact due to heat distortion of the surrounding atmosphere (although I can't provide any supporting evidence of that so far).


IIRC, Hoffman's complaint concerned pictures of parts of a tower with outward bowing, not inward bowing.

Frankly, the picture he showed to illustrate his complaint looked a little phony to me, especially in the corner. However, as Hoffman tends to be careful, I imagine he cross-checked the NIST photo with other sources.

Even so, I'd like to see those sources.

Can you post a link to the picture you are referring to, metamars?

Maybe I am getting confused with the famous (infamous) NIST picture of inward bowing?

Thanks

Well, it looks like I didn't recall correctly. Below is the picture I had in mind.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/nt_bowed1.jpg
User posted image

If you read the adjacent text,

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
 

Foxx::

Metamars I'm still looking for undoctored / unquestionable pics of this NIST alleged inward bowing - As far as I am concerned they are unsupportable from a structural point of view... the 2 bolts holding the trusses to the perimeter columns would have FAILED Long Before bowing 14" steel columns inwards. I tend to agree with Hoffman that the one picture presented by NIST MAY be an anomalous camera artifact due to heat distortion of the surrounding atmosphere (although I can't provide any supporting evidence of that so far).


IIRC, Hoffman's complaint concerned pictures of parts of a tower with outward bowing, not inward bowing.

Frankly, the picture he showed to illustrate his complaint looked a little phony to me, especially in the corner. However, as Hoffman tends to be careful, I imagine he cross-checked the NIST photo with other sources.

Even so, I'd like to see those sources.

Can you post a link to the picture you are referring to, metamars?

Maybe I am getting confused with the famous (infamous) NIST picture of inward bowing?

Thanks

Well, it looks like I didn't recall correctly. Below is the picture I had in mind.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/nt_bowed1.jpg
User posted image

If you read the adjacent text,


A key part in NIST's theory of the collapse initiation is that the perimeter columns on one of the faces of each Tower bowed inward, pulled by sagging trusses. The Report contends that the columns on the south face of the North Tower bowed inward in the moments before its collapse and that the columns on the east face of the South Tower bowed inward some time before its collapse. As evidence for the supposed bowed columns NIST cites photographs. The Report includes one annotated photograph allegedly showing bowing in the North Tower, but no such photographs of allegedly bowing of columns in the South Tower. There are two photographs of alleged South Tower column bowing in an earlier slide presentation.

NIST fails to consider an alternative explanation for the bowed appearance of columns in its selected photographs of the Twin Towers: light refraction caused by the layer of hot air adjacent to the Towers. Such atmospheric conditions would refract light in a way that is consistent with apparent distortion of the columns seen in the photographs.


you see it's not even talking about outward bowing, only inward bowing. If you look at the corner of the buiding on the left, Floor 97, it shows a phony looking outward bowing. This is what stuck in my mind.

I have to believe that videos of this floor would put Hoffman's question to rest. The illusion of bowing due to refraction should show some "wavering", due to convection currents.

Also, if videos show the colums bow to the left, then the right, then we can be sure that Hoffman's concerns are quite justified. laugh.gif

The composite photo that I commented on "recently" shows clear signs of bowing on the bottom half. The fact that this half is then stuck on to a top half that obscures the issue more than anything else is what originally made me suspicuous. I mean, why didn't they simply show the entire photo that the bottom half of the composite belonged to? Furthermore, there didn't seem to be much evidence of fire on the bottom half.

newton
that inward bowing picture could have been snapped (immediately )after the core was destroyed. perhaps that is the side towards which the tower leaned as it fell. or, perhaps it is a twenty million dollar photoshop job.

one of the most obvious problems with the 'authorities' is that they are unwilingly to share the raw data with the public. that in itself is incriminating in what is supposed to be an open society.

i haven't seen any official supporters try and explain the loud explosion (that can be heard on 911eyewitness) that occured BEFORE the tower fell.

nor is there a satisfactory explanation for molten steel.

nor tower seven's freefall, symmetrical collapse.

nor bush's statement that he had seen the first plane hit the tower, because it must have been on teevee. it wasn't on teevee ever, and therefore, this is a PHYSICAL impossibility, and proof that he is not a good crime accomplice.
steve1957
QUOTE
Mel,

WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO BRING THOSE RESPONSIBLE (who's that?) to JUSTICE? 


OK, OK, I shouldn't leave you all in suspense so I'm gonna answer you.

Now buckle up your seat belts because you're gonna go places you've never been.
But remember, don't thank me, I'm just the messenger.

Part of the problem is not just the criminals who did 9/11, IE; a handful of neo/con, corrupt companies working together in a synergistic manner for your typical objectives of ruling the world.

But it's also the individual people, we'll call them sheep who don't really know where they're going, but they just blindly follow the leader to the slaughter, you know like all those guys in Iraq, some of our half way decent soldiers who may have had good intentions of defending this country.

Yes, many of us deceived individuals may have good intentions and are trying to do what we think is right, but unfortunately, (we the people) are so deceived through mass hypnosis, subliminal messages, and a multitude of brain washing techniques via the media, our churches, educational system, etc. etc. that we have no clue as to what's really going on. When I say we, of course I mean some of us.

I'm sure some of you grown-ups remember the Jones town Kool Aid mass suicide, if not, maybe the Hail Bob episode, where people BLINDLY put their trust in their fearless leader even unto death.

So metaphorically speaking, most Americans are mentally sick with a disease called deception, and this sickness is killing us, morally, spiritually and physically. It's gotten so bad that people don't even realize we are killing tens of thousands of innocent children, not only in Iraq and other parts of the world, but in our home country. Remember Katrina?

OK, the neo/cons didn't control the weather nor bring on the hurricane, and lets assume they didn't do anything to that levee and that it did breach by natural forces. The way that the government reacted was so sick, that even some of the reporters on Fox news couldn't stomach it. Now come-on, if Fox news criticized the way little bush handled that situation, you know it must have been serious.

But the point is that thousands of poor blacks and whites and others were barbarically left for dead in the Arena and on the highway, we saw it on the news, yet the president of FEMA was congratulated for his good efforts.

Point being, the people in this nation have become extremely sick and demented and perverted to the point where we have some serious trouble.

A judge recently gave a child molester 60 days in jail for molesting a 6 year old girl. And I don't need to elaborate on so many of the other problems, but all too many people in this nation are sick, demented, perverted, child killers, rapists, crooks and liars, YET when little bush boasts to the American people how good we are, the people just eat it up. We love flattery and hate rebuking so much, that when some guy like me points out how sick we've become they call it abuse.

And so, my part, or maybe one of the things I try to contribute is MENTAL NUTRIENTS, called truth. I'm not saying our troubles will be healed over night or even if they can be healed, only God knows, but what I am saying is that we are nation, dying of Mal- nutrition (spiritually speaking) and the Mal- nutrition I'm speaking about is for lack of truth.

So here I am on this board, observing a few individuals that seem to be mentally healthier than others, who boldly tell it like is regarding 9/11 and what really happened, without fear of repercussions. These people know who they are, and in a spiritual sense they are much healthier and stronger, because they accept the truth and let the truth flow through their veins, even though people hate them for it, they are bold and confident enough to stick with the truth.

So yes, there's a few people here and there that seem to be OK, however most of the people on this board provide a good example for many others around the country and of course in other parts of the world, who suffer from lack of truth and an over dose of deception.

So call me a snake oil salesman if you like, coming from sick people I consider that a compliment. My solution is to INJECT AS MUCH TRUTH into you sick people that, who knows maybe it will take and some of you might get some nutrients in your system.

And of course I'm not alone. Dr. Ray Griffen, and many others seem to have a similar desire to help provide some truth nutrients to this sick nation, in hopes of helping people live a healthier life.

Yes, I love analogies, I've learned many in the bible and sometimes they seem the best way to explain something, so that's how I explain it.

Thank God I'm not alone, thank God there's a few others that likewise recognize the sick degenerated state of mind that all too many Americans are suffering from and thank God some of these people CARE ENOUGH ABOUT OUR PEOPLE, that they are willing to be ridiculed, hated and spit on for trying to help.

Some of you are like serious heroine addicts that need your fix of deception just to function, and so when I arrive on the scene and attempt to take it away from you, I realize I may sometimes move to quick as some of you may need to be WEANED OFF your deception little by little, as all that truth is just too much for you guys to handle, so I do confess I make mistakes, I sometimes move to fast, when I should probably slow down and try to help WEAN YOU OFF THE DECEPTION slowly but surely.

Now don't get me wrong there's a lot more to be done in the healing process, even after the deception is flushed out and the truth brought in, there's still a long process of re orientating your minds, after living so long on deception and illusions, IE; mass hypnosis and brain washing, it's gonna take some time to adjust to the new change.

Maybe some of you think it's a waste of time, it's too late, these people are so sick, there's no cure, we're all dead meat.

And who knows you might be right, but I'm an optimist, I still have hope.

http://nttsuperplus.com/Dhea_Introduction.htm
Schneibster
OK, let's have a look at a few things.

1. Conductivity of iron/steel, from Steven E. Jones' very own paper:
QUOTE
This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum)
Here Jones makes it clear that despite the contentions of certain others bent on making a profit, iron has a "fairly low heat conductivity." Since you like his conclusions so well, perhaps you'll accept this one too.

2. Jones blithely states,
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum)
Here Jones makes it clear that despite the contentions of certain others bent on making a profit, iron has a "fairly low heat conductivity." Since you like his conclusions so well, perhaps you'll accept this one too.

2. Jones blithely states, On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.
Apparently, Jones has not seen numerous analyses that show that the potential energy of the buildings and their contents would have been on the close order of a quarter kiloton. I have shown this using very conservative estimates of the building and contents masses. Relatively simple calculations show that this energy is sufficient to heat the steel in the building to red hot temperatures. In addition, this does not take into account the energy of the burning contents- which would burn in the pile over a period of days or weeks, and inject a great deal more heat into the rubble.

3. Basic confusion over the difference between temperature and heat continues. If a quantity of heat E is injected into a substance of mass M with a specific heat of X, then the resulting temperature T of the substance will be
T = E/MX
It does not matter what the temperature of the heat source is. And the temperature of a hydrocarbon fire in an oxygen atmosphere is estimated at anywhere from 1100C to 1300C, according to this site, which discusses tanker fires inside tunnels and has nothing whatsoever to do with the WTC. As has been pointed out repeatedly, as long as the temperature of the fire is greater than the temperature of the steel, heat will continue to be injected into the steel. The steel loses 50% of its strength at 600C, and 90% of its strength at 800C, as can be seen from this page, an archive of a page published by Corus Construction, a European steel construction company. A fire burning at 1100C will have no trouble continuing to inject heat into a substance until that substance reaches a temperature of 800C.

4. Continuing obfuscation is occurring regarding the melting of steel DURING THE FIRE and PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE, and AFTER THE COLLAPSE in the rubble pile. They are completely separate events. The amount of heat available PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE is merely a contributing factor, and clearly NOT the only factor, to the heat available AFTER THE COLLAPSE. Other contributing factors would be the kinetic energy of the collapse, and the energy released by the subsequent burning of the unburned contents of the building in the rubble pile.

5. There is also continuing obfuscation of the fact that while neither the impact of the airliner alone, nor the fire alone, would be sufficient to cause the collapse, the impact of the airliner would necessarily have weakened both the perimeter column structure, and the core column structure, and also exposed the core columns by stripping off their insulation; this would be followed by a fire of greater intensity than could be expected from a normal office fire. It is the COMBINATION of these factors, not any single factor alone, that led to the collapse.

6. The statement is made without support that there was molten metal in the rubble pile of 7 WTC. I see no supporting documentation. The molten metal was pulled from the 1 or 2 WTC piles, not the 7 WTC pile.

7. Jones unjustifiably speculates that the ends of the structural components are white hot, and that the "smoke" they are trailing is aluminum oxide, without ever discussing the fact that from the low-resolution photo provided, the size and composition of whatever is being trailed from the ends of the columns cannot be determined. There is also no evidence that there is anything "white hot" there, particularly in the absence of red hot areas that would be adjacent to these white hot areas if they were real.

8. Are there any examples of buildings that underwent controlled demolition that had molten metal in their basements? I haven't seen any. Why, then, should the existence of such molten metal in the basements of the WTC towers be "proof" they were "demolished?"

9. Jones invokes HMX or RDX, without bothering to note that HMX and RDX produce very high gas volumes, but comparatively little heat; the high volume of gas is the reason for these explosives' brissance. The heat is a secondary effect that accompanies the production of the gas in the chemical chain reaction that is the detonation of the explosive. This is why RDX formed into plastic explosive is used in automobile airbags; it makes a great deal of gas to fill the bag without making sufficient heat to injure the occupants of the car.

10. Jones attempts to make claims regarding the speed of collapse of 7 WTC using videos that do not show the entire building; or that show gaps in the picture sequence. This is not reliable evidence.

11. Jones claims that the collapse of 7 WTC is "symmetrical," but the videos clearly show the crack in the facade running up to the top and accompanied by shattering windows, and that the building is severely deformed during the collapse at two places along both the North Face and the top edge.

12. Jones ignores the fact that the antenna on top of the North Tower was on the hat truss. Futhermore, observation of the video of the collapse in slow motion shows that in fact the antenna didn't move first; Jones is merely parroting what he has seen on various CT sites, rather than making his own observations and drawing his own conclusions.

13. Jones repeats claims that the concrete in the towers was reduced to "flour-like powder" despite incontrovertible photographic evidence of chunks of concrete many feet wide in the rubble pile.

14. Jones asserts that only a small portion of the steel inspected was exposed to fire. Well, duh, ummm, only three floors out of 110 burned! Gee, I wonder how it happened that the collapses occurred on just those floors where the fires were, and how come none of the other steel was burned! This is ridiculous, to say the least.

Serious errors of analysis continue in the paper, and misconceptions about the collapses based on observations of low-resolution pictures and confounding of different phases of the events are repeated time and again, as if they constituted evidence of some sort. The author's colleagues have not endorsed his claims, and in fact there has been quite a bit of furor regarding them; the structural engineering school associated with the university has specifically stated that they do not support Jones' contentions. Overall, I don't see any merit to the paper, and I see several serious mistakes. As usual, the claims are based on incomplete or compromised data, or data that are more credibly explained otherwise.
Foxx
OK here's the famous / infamous picture which NIST shows to represent 'inward bowing of columns' ...

(From --- NISTNCSTAR1_WTC )...

NIST wishes to direct your eye to the area denoted between floors 95 - 98 / columns between 321 - 311.

User posted image

As far as I have been able to determine this is the only picture allegedly supporting this 'inward-bowing' (apart from the obvious 'fake composite picture') presented earlier on this thread.

Anyone else got any photos of this 'alleged' inward bowing of perimeter columns?






metamars
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 10 2006, 03:44 AM)
OK here's the famous / infamous picture which NIST shows to represent 'inward bowing of columns' ...

(From --- NISTNCSTAR1_WTC )...

NIST wishes to direct your eye to the area denoted between floors 95 - 98 / columns between 321 - 311.

User posted image

As far as I have been able to determine this is the only picture allegedly supporting this 'inward-bowing' (apart from the obvious 'fake composite picture')  presented earlier on this thread.

Anyone else got any photos of this 'alleged' inward bowing of perimeter columns?

Common Sense posted a photo, but when I asked for more, I was told that I'd easily find them by searching on the internet. However, I had already spent over 20 minutes looking, to no avail.

There should be tons of photos and videos....
metamars
I might add: another reason I wonder is that there's supposed to be good evidence that the Zapruder film was tampered with, and this info only came out I think in the last 5 years or so. So it's not like this sort of thing never happened before. Jim Fetzer has studied this very closely, and I'm mostly going on his strong opinion.
yesitdid
QUOTE
.The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the solidified slag with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York


Available from where?
newton
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 10 2006, 03:43 AM)
OK, let's have a look at a few things.

1. Conductivity of iron/steel, from Steven E. Jones' very own paper:
QUOTE
This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum)
Here Jones makes it clear that despite the contentions of certain others bent on making a profit, iron has a "fairly low heat conductivity." Since you like his conclusions so well, perhaps you'll accept this one too.

2. Jones blithely states,
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum)
Here Jones makes it clear that despite the contentions of certain others bent on making a profit, iron has a "fairly low heat conductivity." Since you like his conclusions so well, perhaps you'll accept this one too.

2. Jones blithely states, On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.
Apparently, Jones has not seen numerous analyses that show that the potential energy of the buildings and their contents would have been on the close order of a quarter kiloton. I have shown this using very conservative estimates of the building and contents masses. Relatively simple calculations show that this energy is sufficient to heat the steel in the building to red hot temperatures. In addition, this does not take into account the energy of the burning contents- which would burn in the pile over a period of days or weeks, and inject a great deal more heat into the rubble.

3. Basic confusion over the difference between temperature and heat continues. If a quantity of heat E is injected into a substance of mass M with a specific heat of X, then the resulting temperature T of the substance will be
T = E/MX
It does not matter what the temperature of the heat source is. And the temperature of a hydrocarbon fire in an oxygen atmosphere is estimated at anywhere from 1100C to 1300C, according to this site, which discusses tanker fires inside tunnels and has nothing whatsoever to do with the WTC. As has been pointed out repeatedly, as long as the temperature of the fire is greater than the temperature of the steel, heat will continue to be injected into the steel. The steel loses 50% of its strength at 600C, and 90% of its strength at 800C, as can be seen from this page, an archive of a page published by Corus Construction, a European steel construction company. A fire burning at 1100C will have no trouble continuing to inject heat into a substance until that substance reaches a temperature of 800C.




the problem with your analysis, is that you have a tendency to take the total mass of the building, and make it available for whatever work needs to be done, without actually providing a mechanism for these heat transfers.

you also gloss over key points. like...

QUOTE
which would burn in the pile over a period of days or weeks, and inject a great deal more heat into the rubble.


without oxygen? weeks? REEEEEEAAAAALY?! wow. amazing.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
which would burn in the pile over a period of days or weeks, and inject a great deal more heat into the rubble.


without oxygen? weeks? REEEEEEAAAAALY?! wow. amazing.

T = E/MX
It does not matter what the temperature of the heat source is. And the temperature of a hydrocarbon fire in an oxygen atmosphere is estimated at anywhere from 1100C to 1300C, according to this site, which discusses tanker fires inside tunnels and has nothing whatsoever to do with the WTC


first, you post a formula that has T as a function, and then quickly qualify that 't' doesn't matter. you also rightly point out that these figures have relatively NOTHING to do with the towers, which were not tanker fires inside tunnels.

QUOTE
A fire burning at 1100C will have no trouble continuing to inject heat into a substance until that substance reaches a temperature of 800C.


very authoritative stance. and yet, like a half an hour after i eat chinese food, i am left strangley unsatisfied by this non-analysis.

did YOU read the nist report? there was no fire at these temperatures. and certainly no SUSTAINED fire at these temps.

nist needs you. their lie sucks, and even you are contradicting it, while simultaneously trying to support it.
yesitdid
Foxx writes:
QUOTE
I realize that YOU are not primarily responsible for bringing those issues to this thread, and this is more directed to YID. Ground-Effect has NOTHING to do with THIS thread. Thank You.


Does it not bother you Foxx, that this is absolutely incorrect? Did you simply get this wrong or is it a deliberate lie?

Galdur first brought up GE on this thread, not I.

If it bunches your panties so much then I certainly will not refer to GE again in this thread.

Can we also not have any political discussions in this thread or would that somehow be more related to the physics of the tower collapses than the Pentagon attack?
yesitdid
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 9 2006, 11:41 PM)
I'm sure some of you think that the towers were
flimsy structures but unfortunately for you that
was not the case at all. They were built to withstand
winds of 140 miles/hr. (they were situated close to the
sea where you can expect high wind) and the impact
of a Boeing 707 (since they dwarfed the surroundings
this was a natural precaution).

Have you ever seen a building that has had steel columns severed by a hurricane wind?



reasonwhy
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 10 2006, 03:43 AM)
OK, let's have a look at a few things.



Serious errors of analysis continue in the paper, and misconceptions about the collapses based on observations of low-resolution pictures and confounding of different phases of the events are repeated time and again, as if they constituted evidence of some sort. The author's colleagues have not endorsed his claims, and in fact there has been quite a bit of furor regarding them; the structural engineering school associated with the university has specifically stated that they do not support Jones' contentions. Overall, I don't see any merit to the paper, and I see several serious mistakes. As usual, the claims are based on incomplete or compromised data, or data that are more credibly explained otherwise.

However professionals peer reviewed it:

“My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.”

Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.
[

Why don’t you write them and point out the obvious mistakes?
http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724
Schneibster
QUOTE (newton+)
the problem with your analysis, is that you have a tendency to take the total mass of the building, and make it available for whatever work needs to be done, without actually providing a mechanism for these heat transfers.
Ummm, "mechanism" == "second law of thermodynamics?" What is your objection here? Where do you think the heat is going to go? Just disappear? It doesn't. Pump up a bicycle tire with a hand pump and measure the temperature of the pump and the tire before and after. Please be detailed in your objection, if you think it actually holds water. This here is handwaving. Welcome to the physics site. Got some physics to discuss?

QUOTE (newton+)
QUOTE (Schneibster+)
which would burn in the pile over a period of days or weeks, and inject a great deal more heat into the rubble.


without oxygen? weeks? REEEEEEAAAAALY?! wow. amazing.
Where did the smoke coming out of the pile come from? It couldn't have been FIRE, because there was no OXYGEN, right? Neat. I'm sure all the people spraying water on it would have been very interested in your theory.

QUOTE (newton+)
first, you post a formula that has T as a function, and then quickly qualify that 't' doesn't matter. 
Oh, really? How interesting- let's see what I REALLY said. I said, "the temperature of the HEAT SOURCE doesn't matter." You confound the temperature of the heat source, and the temperature of the material being heated. Of course, it's very charitable of me to assume that this is merely confusion, and not deliberate obfuscation. So which is it: are you STUPID, or are you LYING?

QUOTE (newton+)
you also rightly point out that these figures have relatively NOTHING to do with the towers, which were not tanker fires inside tunnels.
And you rightly point out that they didn't involve any hydrocarbons, either. Oh, errrmmm, uh, gee, I guess that's wrong, isn't it? Carefully, I avoid sites that might have a political bent, but which show the ONE FACT I am interested in: the temperature of the fires. And you proceed to claim that it doesn't have anything to do with the temperature of the fires inside the WTC? Gee, I don't think you've met your burden of proof there, newtie old thang. This looks pretty much like obfuscation to me, since the temperature of a hydrocarbon fire in a tunnel is pretty unlikely to be different from the temperature of a hydrocarbon fire in a building. I guess the answer to the above question is, you're lying. And it's deliberate. Sold any T-shirts lately there, sport? How about a link to your site with all the pay-per-view advertising.

QUOTE (newton+)
did YOU read the nist report?  there was no fire at these temperatures.  and certainly no SUSTAINED fire at these temps.
Oh, really? That's interesting. So kerosene/gasoline/diesel burn at one temperature in a tunnel, and another temperature in a building. How very interesting. Do you have some sort of authoritative source that you care to quote to report this, or are you just engaging in more hand waving and deception in order to sell some more books and pay-per-view advertising?
Schneibster
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 10 2006, 04:53 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 10 2006, 03:43 AM)
OK, let's have a look at a few things.



Serious errors of analysis continue in the paper, and misconceptions about the collapses based on observations of low-resolution pictures and confounding of different phases of the events are repeated time and again, as if they constituted evidence of some sort. The author's colleagues have not endorsed his claims, and in fact there has been quite a bit of furor regarding them; the structural engineering school associated with the university has specifically stated that they do not support Jones' contentions. Overall, I don't see any merit to the paper, and I see several serious mistakes. As usual, the claims are based on incomplete or compromised data, or data that are more credibly explained otherwise.

However professionals per reviewed it:

“My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.”

Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.
[

Why don’t you write them and point out the obvious mistakes?
http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

Ummm, I did, and you haven't responded other than to state that it was reviewed. The qualifications of the reviewers weren't included, and in the face of the serious factual errors I raised are in any case immaterial. Respond to my criticisms, or be ignored.
adoucette
PEER REVIEW comes AFTER PUBLICATION.

The INTERNAL review that is done PRIOR to acceptance for publication varies tremendously, in fact the article doesn't even state WHERE the paper WILL BE published.

But the point is, UNTIL it is published in a journal with reasonably wide circulation among people who have the credentials to properly analyze it, the paper can not claim to have been PEER REVIEWED.

Arthur

reasonwhy
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 10 2006, 05:16 AM)
PEER REVIEW comes AFTER PUBLICATION.

The INTERNAL review that is done PRIOR to acceptance for publication varies tremendously, in fact the article doesn't even state WHERE the paper WILL BE published.

But the point is, UNTIL it is published in a journal with reasonably wide circulation among people who have the credentials to properly analyze it, the paper can not claim to have been PEER REVIEWED.

Arthur

Save the BS for someone that will believe it.

Peer review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

This article refers to the scholarly process of screening papers. For the magazine Peer Review see Peer Review (magazine). For peer review for Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Peer review.


Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the awarding of funding for research. Publishers and funding agencies use peer review to select and to screen submissions.. The process also forces authors to meet the standards of their discipline. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
newton
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 10 2006, 05:04 AM)
QUOTE (newton+)
the problem with your analysis, is that you have a tendency to take the total mass of the building, and make it available for whatever work needs to be done, without actually providing a mechanism for these heat transfers.
Ummm, "mechanism" == "second law of thermodynamics?" What is your objection here? Where do you think the heat is going to go? Just disappear? It doesn't. Pump up a bicycle tire with a hand pump and measure the temperature of the pump and the tire before and after. Please be detailed in your objection, if you think it actually holds water. This here is handwaving. Welcome to the physics site. Got some physics to discuss?

QUOTE (newton+)
QUOTE (Schneibster+)
which would burn in the pile over a period of days or weeks, and inject a great deal more heat into the rubble.


without oxygen? weeks? REEEEEEAAAAALY?! wow. amazing.
Where did the smoke coming out of the pile come from? It couldn't have been FIRE, because there was no OXYGEN, right? Neat. I'm sure all the people spraying water on it would have been very interested in your theory.

QUOTE (newton+)
first, you post a formula that has T as a function, and then quickly qualify that 't' doesn't matter. 
Oh, really? How interesting- let's see what I REALLY said. I said, "the temperature of the HEAT SOURCE doesn't matter." You confound the temperature of the heat source, and the temperature of the material being heated. Of course, it's very charitable of me to assume that this is merely confusion, and not deliberate obfuscation. So which is it: are you STUPID, or are you LYING?

QUOTE (newton+)
you also rightly point out that these figures have relatively NOTHING to do with the towers, which were not tanker fires inside tunnels.
And you rightly point out that they didn't involve any hydrocarbons, either. Oh, errrmmm, uh, gee, I guess that's wrong, isn't it? Carefully, I avoid sites that might have a political bent, but which show the ONE FACT I am interested in: the temperature of the fires. And you proceed to claim that it doesn't have anything to do with the temperature of the fires inside the WTC? Gee, I don't think you've met your burden of proof there, newtie old thang. This looks pretty much like obfuscation to me, since the temperature of a hydrocarbon fire in a tunnel is pretty unlikely to be different from the temperature of a hydrocarbon fire in a building. I guess the answer to the above question is, you're lying. And it's deliberate. Sold any T-shirts lately there, sport? How about a link to your site with all the pay-per-view advertising.

QUOTE (newton+)
did YOU read the nist report?  there was no fire at these temperatures.  and certainly no SUSTAINED fire at these temps.
Oh, really? That's interesting. So kerosene/gasoline/diesel burn at one temperature in a tunnel, and another temperature in a building. How very interesting. Do you have some sort of authoritative source that you care to quote to report this, or are you just engaging in more hand waving and deception in order to sell some more books and pay-per-view advertising?

hoo hoo! he's spittin' mad, again. all epitaphs and whatnot.

i do make mistakes, and am happy to admit them, when i see the error of my logic.

however, there is a very essential difference(in my obviously naroow, lol, mind) between a tunnel fire fueled by hydrocarbons, and an office fire. of course they would burn at different temeratures. the office fires in the recently well-ventilated tower, would flare up quickly, soon spending a great deal of the fuel(the first fifteen or twenty minutes, to be GENEROUS, as i personally think 90% went up in the initial fireball), and then begin smouldering and burning out. nist says so, too. (i like to use LYING nist's findings, because shills have to defend them)

office furnishings were found to burn out in about a half an hour, according to nist.

the ACTUAL measured temperatures that steel was recorded at 250 degrees celsius(on three beams out of hundreds), and 650 degrees celsius on ONE beam(estimated at no longer than fifteen minutes exposure).
of course, you already know all this, and are only trying to keep from admitting that it is more realevent than your whacky blind-em-with-science THEORIES.

you see, i am using actual empirical data, whereas you are pulling wild speculation out of your orifices.


i think the windsor tower provides a better parallel, personally. man, that sucker burned HOT and LONG. it got real warped like, and underwent partial collapse. there was NOTHING of the sort seen with the two towers, and certainly all your whacky postulation has nothing to do with tower seven's demise.

whereas the conspiracy theory is consistant in that it explains EVERYTHING.

oh well. we can't all be GOOD scientists. some of us will have to just watch as centuries of human learning are washed down a drain of lookoverthereism.

you DID read on that other thread that a million gallon tank full of deisel ignited and burned out? 1/4 inch thick steel?
adoucette
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 10 2006, 05:35 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 10 2006, 05:16 AM)
PEER REVIEW comes AFTER PUBLICATION.

The INTERNAL review that is done PRIOR to acceptance for publication varies tremendously, in fact the article doesn't even state WHERE the paper WILL BE published.

But the point is, UNTIL it is published in a journal with reasonably wide circulation among people who have the credentials to properly analyze it, the paper can not claim to have been PEER REVIEWED.

Arthur

Save the BS for someone that will believe it.

Peer review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

This article refers to the scholarly process of screening papers. For the magazine Peer Review see Peer Review (magazine). For peer review for Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Peer review.


Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the awarding of funding for research. Publishers and funding agencies use peer review to select and to screen submissions.. The process also forces authors to meet the standards of their discipline. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Why not read a little further in the article you linked from,

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the peer review process. After being put to press, and after 'the ink is dry', the process of peer review continues in journal clubs. Here groups of colleagues review literature and discuss the value and implications it presents. Journal clubs will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature.


NOT UNTIL A PAPER HAS HAD INDEPENDENT REVIEW, HAS IT PASSED PEER REVIEW.

Now it IS TRUE, that SOME JOURNALS have such high standards for PUBLICATION that it is rare that significant errors are found after publication.

SINCE WE DON'T KNOW (at least I have yet to see) what "journal" his paper will be published in, its real hard to know what level of review his paper has passed.

Arthur
Schneibster
I note that you did not address the accusation that you are personally profiting from your stance. Most of your ilk don't either.

QUOTE (newton+)
there is a very essential difference(in my obviously naroow, lol, mind) between a tunnel fire fueled by hydrocarbons, and an office fire.  of course they would burn at different temeratures.  the office fires in the recently well-ventilated tower, would flare up quickly, soon spending a great deal of the fuel(the first fifteen or twenty minutes, to be GENEROUS, as i personally think 90% went up in the initial fireball), and then begin smouldering and burning out.  nist says so, too.
Amusing; burning more fuel == less heat? Or perhaps burning fuel faster == less heat? Learn any physics lately?

And what happened to the wood from the desks, the cubicle partition walls' fabric, the foam rubber from the chairs, the paper from the file cabinets and desks? Just sat there, right? You betcha.

QUOTE (newton+)
(i like to use LYING nist's findings, because shills have to defend them)
Don't give a flying f**k at a rolling donut about NIST's report; I don't give them much more credit than most of the CT sites. OTOH, some of their research was pretty good. Don't confuse me with someone who cares what you think of NIST, tho; I go with what I know, not what someone tells me. If I accepted their report, I wouldn't even be talking here.

QUOTE (newton+)
the ACTUAL measured temperatures that steel was recorded at 250 degrees celsius(on three beams out of hundreds), and 650 degrees celsius on ONE beam(estimated at no longer than fifteen minutes exposure).
And YOU know perfectly well that the sample size of the analyzed steel was so miniscule that the figures you quote here are nothing but hand-waving; we're talking about less than ten pieces of steel out of literally tens of thousands, and they can't even reliably identify what part of the building they came from, much less whether they were in a position to be exposed to the hottest part of the fire.

QUOTE (newton+)
of course, you already know all this, and are only trying to keep from admitting that it is more realevent than your whacky blind-em-with-science THEORIES.
Better than being a REAL shill who is actually trying to steal money from people who aren't bright enough to know better. Like you, for instance.

QUOTE (newton+)
you see, i am using actual empirical data, whereas you are pulling wild speculation out of your orifices.
I have yet to see any. I see none in this post, and none in your previous reply. I see lots of claims, no links, and several deliberately misleading distortions and outright lies.

Here are two:
1. "the ACTUAL measured temperatures that steel was recorded at 250 degrees celsius" Lie, nobody knows where the steel this was measured on was located in the building. Lie, one beam was exposed to 650C.
2. "first, you post a formula that has T as a function, and then quickly qualify that 't' doesn't matter." Lie, that's a misrepresentation of what I said, and a deliberate one at that.

There are more, and they are documented.
reasonwhy
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 10 2006, 06:06 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 10 2006, 05:35 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 10 2006, 05:16 AM)
PEER REVIEW comes AFTER PUBLICATION.

The INTERNAL review that is done PRIOR to acceptance for publication varies tremendously, in fact the article doesn't even state WHERE the paper WILL BE published.

But the point is, UNTIL it is published in a journal with reasonably wide circulation among people who have the credentials to properly analyze it, the paper can not claim to have been PEER REVIEWED.

Arthur

Save the BS for someone that will believe it.

Peer review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

This article refers to the scholarly process of screening papers. For the magazine Peer Review see Peer Review (magazine). For peer review for Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Peer review.


Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the awarding of funding for research. Publishers and funding agencies use peer review to select and to screen submissions.. The process also forces authors to meet the standards of their discipline. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Why not read a little further in the article you linked from,

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the peer review process. After being put to press, and after 'the ink is dry', the process of peer review continues in journal clubs. Here groups of colleagues review literature and discuss the value and implications it presents. Journal clubs will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature.


NOT UNTIL A PAPER HAS HAD INDEPENDENT REVIEW, HAS IT PASSED PEER REVIEW.

Now it IS TRUE, that SOME JOURNALS have such high standards for PUBLICATION that it is rare that significant errors are found after publication.

SINCE WE DON'T KNOW (at least I have yet to see) what "journal" his paper will be published in, its real hard to know what level of review his paper has passed.

Arthur

Arthur,

“The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the peer review process.”

Did you add this to the Wikipedia ? That is the most ridicules sentence I have read from an encyclopedia.
newton
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 10 2006, 06:26 AM)
I note that you did not address the accusation that you are personally profiting from your stance. Most of your ilk don't either.


Here are two:
1. "the ACTUAL measured temperatures that steel was recorded at 250 degrees celsius" Lie, nobody knows where the steel this was measured on was located in the building. Lie, one beam was exposed to 650C.
2. "first, you post a formula that has T as a function, and then quickly qualify that 't' doesn't matter." Lie, that's a misrepresentation of what I said, and a deliberate one at that.

There are more, and they are documented.

you know, when a kettle calls something black, it is completely moot. i am not the argument, and any disagreement is not a lie.

i don't have a website. i'm not selling anything. i'm giving my opinion, FOR FREE! if you have some way to take this one to task, i'd LOVE to see it, LOFL!

i would list a bunch of links over and over, but i'm not here for that. i am here to learn (and teach or DISCIPLINE in some cases, lol).

i'm simply worried about the future of humanity (for some reason i have yet to grasp).

i posted that one beam was measured at 650. you're not just trying to blind everyone else with science, you've blinded yourself. i did not lie, and it is in black and white, dude.

perhaps i misinterpreted your obfuscation regarding 'T", but you clearly stated "T" doesn't matter. also in black in white.

the thing that changes how hot something burns(generally speaking, the most salient factor) is available oxygen. this is what would be different in a tunnel and a tower(i know your new to holistic thinking, so i'll cut you some slack and imagine you were just being ignorant, and not purposely misleading).

your argument regarding not knowing where the steel came from doesn't really support your cause. your nist heroes are involved in bad science, if you are correct and they don't know where the samples came from, or alternatively, if they picked steel samples that were irrelevent to study.

i LOVE that you continually call people liars. a beautiful tell any psy student could see from miles away. it's called 'projection'.
Barbara Olson
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 10 2006, 05:16 AM)
PEER REVIEW comes AFTER PUBLICATION.

The INTERNAL review that is done PRIOR to acceptance for publication varies tremendously, in fact the article doesn't even state WHERE the paper WILL BE published.

But the point is, UNTIL it is published in a journal with reasonably wide circulation among people who have the credentials to properly analyze it, the paper can not claim to have been PEER REVIEWED.

Arthur

Jones states atop his paper, depending on which version you look at, that it is set to be published in an apparently pro-Marxist economics publication. So far, I've seen no indication that he intends to submit it to any legitimate scientific or engineering publication.

Reference by Jones

Marxist?

"Research in Political Economy has played a very positive role in developing the
scientific Marxist agenda for the last 25 years" -- Ajit Sinha, Science & Society
galdur
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177.)
Schneibster
QUOTE (newton+)
i don't have a website.  i'm not selling anything.  i'm giving my opinion, FOR FREE!  if you have some way to take this one to task, i'd LOVE to see it, LOFL! 
So you say. We'll see what happens.

QUOTE (newton+)
i would list a bunch of links over and over, but i'm not here for that.  i am here to learn (and teach or DISCIPLINE in some cases, lol).
Considering you make statements for which you offer no proof, and no reference, this seems a convenient piece of sophistry. What you appear to be here to do is to offer opinions that have no foundation and are therefore useless.

QUOTE (newton+)
i posted that one beam was measured at 650.  you're not just trying to blind everyone else with science, you've blinded yourself.  i did not lie, and it is in black and white, dude.
You posted: "the ACTUAL measured temperatures that steel was recorded at 250 degrees celsius" implying by the use of the word "the" that that was the temperature of the entire fire. Absent any other statement, that one alone is sufficient to mark you as a liar by omission. You then present the contradicting statement that one piece of steel was measured at 650C. I blind no one to anything: YOU said it. And now you wish you hadn't. Detail is important, relevant, and accuracy in the presentation of detail is the difference between a lie and the truth. Which side that statement falls on is obvious to anyone capable of reasoning past the most basic level. It's called "slant" by some, but I prefer "lie," since that's the intent of it. Make of that what you will.

QUOTE (newton+)
perhaps i misinterpreted your obfuscation regarding 'T", but you clearly stated "T" doesn't matter.  also in black in white.
And another lie: there is a vast difference between misinterpretation and misrepresentation, and from the context it is clear that it was your INTENT to MISREPRESENT what I said, with the deliberate purpose of discrediting it. When you play semantic games of this type with me, it makes it clear that it is your intent to be an opponent. That's fine; opposition doesn't scare me. But if you have some actual REASONS for your opinion, perhaps you'd care to present them, instead of resorting to playing semantic games. I haven't seen a one, so far. And I think that instead of discrediting me, you have only managed to discredit yourself.

QUOTE (newton+)
the thing that changes how hot something burns(generally speaking, the most salient factor) is available oxygen.
Now this is a statement of apparent fact; however, it is misleading. In actual fact, the TEMPERATURE at which something burns, and the AMOUNT OF HEAT that burning creates, depends far more on WHAT BURNS than on HOW MUCH OXYGEN it has available to it. For example, paper and wood burn more slowly and with less heat per unit mass than charcoal or gasoline. Both the RATE and the TOTAL HEAT are different. And if either burns at all, then its TEMPERATURE is dependent not upon how much oxygen is available, but upon how much energy each chemical reaction generates in the molecules that are the source and result of the burning. A hydrocarbon can burn completely; IOW, every carbon atom can become CO2, and every hydrogen atom can become H2O. Cellulose, OTOH, cannot do this; it contains oxygen, and so its energy per unit mass must necessarily be less. In the burning of a molecule of iso-octane, eight carbon atoms are linked to sixteen oxygen atoms, and eighteen hydrogen atoms to nine oxygen atoms- in the burning of a molecule of cellulose, six carbon atoms link to twelve oxygen atoms and ten hydrogen to five oxygen, and five extra oxygen atoms must perforce become two molecules of oxygen (O2 it is often called) and an extra oxygen atom, that combines with one from another molecule of cellulose to form half of an O2 molecule. None of these five oxygen atoms generates net heat. Thus we see that the consumption of the hydrocarbon gives both a higher temperature and a higher total heat per gram or per mole (whichever way one wishes to measure it) than the carbohydrate. And it makes no difference how much oxygen there is. I don't maintain that you lied here; in this case, I believe you are honestly mistaken.

QUOTE (newton+)
this is what would be different in a tunnel and a tower(i know your new to holistic thinking, so i'll cut you some slack and imagine you were just being ignorant, and not purposely misleading).
I have forgotten things about the differences between holistic and reductionist thinking that you patently will never know, since you seem to think that one is superior to the other, rather than being aware that neither is more correct than the other, they are merely different. You have merely presented the opinion that one is different from the other; you have not shown that it must be.

I assert to the contrary; since the molecules involved are identical, I believe that in fact the circumstances must be similar, rather than different in the terms you assert; I assert in response that the differences in this domain are far less important than the differences between a domain in which normal atmospheric pressure obtains versus one in which air is channelled under pressure. I'd even assert that the temperature of burning hydrocarbon would be higher than burning carbohydrate by a far greater degree than the difference between the same hydrocarbon burning in a tunnel and in a building. The tunnel is open at both ends; the building open at the windows. I don't expect that a great deal of difference would obtain.

I offer in demonstration a common wooden kitchen match, saturated on one end with paraffin (a close relative of jet fuel and gasoline) and covered on that end with a mixture of antimony(III) sulfide and potassium chlorate, struck on a surface of red phosphorus and powdered glass. Strike the match; the antimony sulfide and potassium chlorate oxidize quickly, and ignite the paraffin-soaked wood; hold the match, and the paraffin burns out, and the wood begins to burn much more slowly and with less heat. You offer nothing but your bald statement. I wonder which is more likely correct?

QUOTE (newton+)
your argument regarding not knowing where the steel came from doesn't really support your cause.
You have misunderstood me if you believe I have a "cause." I am uninterested in causes, since they are irrelevant. If you have salient data to present, get started. So far you have presented irrational and unsupported statements you misrepresent as "facts," and a great deal of insulting and meaningless byblow. What I asserted is that the temperature of the very small steel sample that NIST analyzed is meaningless, and we have to look to other factors to try to understand what happened. This is a fact, not a "cause."

QUOTE (newton+)
i LOVE that you continually call people liars.  a beautiful tell any psy student could see from miles away.  it's called 'projection'.
Any psychology student would avoid the use of the word "tell," which is a cant expression used by con artists. Anyone paying attention now knows your provenance.
galdur
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True


by David Ray Griffin

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1_toc.html
newton
give up shnibs.

you're such an arse.

you spend way more time attacking people than arguments.

3 pieces of steel measured at 250.

one at 650.

NONE at one thousand.

not a lot at 250, even.

that is empirical data from nist, shnobfuscator.

i love your anger. so misdirected.

Schneibster
Give up, newton. You're a discredit to your side in an argument of any kind, and worse than that on a physics site discussing matters you have not the wit to comprehend. You reveal yourself as a con artist by your language, and by your arguments- you have no technical arguments to present, and cannot respond with any effect when presented with one, and you resort instead to insults and innuendo. Your purpose here must be obfuscation, you are incompetent to do anything else.
newton
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 10 2006, 09:03 AM)
Give up, newton. You're a discredit to your side in an argument of any kind, and worse than that on a physics site discussing matters you have not the wit to comprehend. You reveal yourself as a con artist by your language, and by your arguments- you have no technical arguments to present, and cannot respond with any effect when presented with one, and you resort instead to insults and innuendo. Your purpose here must be obfuscation, you are incompetent to do anything else.

then why do you bother arguing with me, sweetheart? is it my perfume?

LOL at you, shill. you're mostly pissed because you're typing so much, and i'm barely touching the keyboard.

sometimes i feel bad when i'm mean to you, and then i see you launch into a vicious attack on someone else that i just never met, and i suddenly feel okay about it.

you say i offer nothing. i say you offer way too much.

it's kinda like all these remarkable forces in the towers, which would both push and pull, resist and not resist, and succeed and fail at the same time.

you are not interested in nist's report's findings? hmmmm? that's new. they spent a lot of money, you know.

you know, you're (former?) buddy, 'a_ht' was pretty concerned about people like you making trouble for the government. you better watch out, 'they' might get you.
Schneibster
Most of the real world is pretty complex; but made up of simple parts. People like you generally have trouble understanding that. It's kind of difficult with only one lonely brain cell, I guess.
Guest_Temp
Arthur, if the core was hollow as you suggest then HOW did the building stand for 35 years under it's own weight and with the forces of gravity acting on it and the massive wind shear daily, with the occasional hurricane thrown in??

The WTC was designed to take anything mother nature could throw at it; yet a ~puny airplane converts both buildings to dust in no time.



frater plecticus
QUOTE (newton+Jan 10 2006, 08:53 AM)




QUOTE
you're such an arse.

you spend way more time attacking people than arguments.



Because there is NO ARGUMENT that supports the official conspiracy theory. (besides the impossible phone calls and the indestructible passports)


Regarding the PHI / golden proportion observations......

This proportion permeates every living (and dead) structure in the known universe... except one..

user posted image

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
you're such an arse.

you spend way more time attacking people than arguments.



Because there is NO ARGUMENT that supports the official conspiracy theory. (besides the impossible phone calls and the indestructible passports)


Regarding the PHI / golden proportion observations......

This proportion permeates every living (and dead) structure in the known universe... except one..

user posted image

The Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba), sometimes also known as the Maidenhair Tree, is a unique tree with no close living relatives. It is classified in its own division, the Ginkgophyta, comprising the single class Ginkgoopsida, order Ginkgoales, family Ginkgoaceae, genus Ginkgo and just the one species


My (speculative) guess, is that this was the bringer of organic life to planet earth, possibly encrusted within a frozen comet.
metamars
Scneibster:
QUOTE
3. Basic confusion over the difference between temperature and heat continues. If a quantity of heat E is injected into a substance of mass M with a specific heat of X, then the resulting temperature T of the substance will be
T = E/MX
It does not matter what the temperature of the heat source is. And the temperature of a hydrocarbon fire in an oxygen atmosphere is estimated at anywhere from 1100C to 1300C, according to this site, which discusses tanker fires inside tunnels and has nothing whatsoever to do with the WTC. As has been pointed out repeatedly, as long as the temperature of the fire is greater than the temperature of the steel, heat will continue to be injected into the steel. The steel loses 50% of its strength at 600C, and 90% of its strength at 800C, as can be seen from this page, an archive of a page published by Corus Construction, a European steel construction company. A fire burning at 1100C will have no trouble continuing to inject heat into a substance until that substance reaches a temperature of 800C.


The idea that a Ph.D. professor of physics would not know about simple heat condution and the difference between temperature and heat is silly.

It seems to me that you are obfuscating, because you imply that steel is in direct contact with flame. Are you or aren't you? What if 95% of the steel frame's surface area was not in contact with flames for more than 10 minutes? This strikes me as hghly plausible.

So, I am expecting most of the energy from the fires to have been transferred to the steel was via conduction from air to steel, and also by radiance. You then have to figure out the heat transfer from an air/gas mixture to steel, and though I haven't calculated it, considering that the heat conductivity of air is something like 2 orders of magnitude less than that of steel, I doubt that it's significant. You also should give some realistic argument for heat transfer via radiance, if you believe it's significant.

Furthermore, you have often claimed that steel is a poor conductor of heat, and I have addressed the implication of this line of thought wrt an idealized situation, in the steady state solution. One sees that the heat flow through the steel was relatively miniscule. Assuming this is still essentially the case in a more realistic (NOT steady state) scenario, the question "Where did all the heat go?" mus be raised.

I believe the vast majority of it vented into the atmophere.

So, please calculate realistic scenarios that don't assume that steel frames in the near proximity of fires behave like steel immersed in a heat reservoir at a temperature similar to that of a hydrocarbon flame. In light of the above, this appears to be an absurd assumption.
brian
metamars, how about puttting to professor Jones the idea of making his presentation available in DVD format? This must surely be relatively easy with the resources available to him and costs minimal if it was made available for download for anyone to then copy and distribute.

To my mind the Jones paper was a milestone in raising the level of the debate and it would be a major bonus if it could be spread far and wide with the use of the technology almost everyone has access to.

Worthwhile as some of the DVDs on September 11 are many lump too much disparate information together whereas the thrust of Professor Jones presentation on the scientific aspects of the WTC collapse means the viewers would be focussed on the smoking howitzer.

An example - I have handed out a good number of Loose Change and it has been my experience that many come away impressed mostly by the Pentagon side of it. Not to express an opinion on the Pentagon but like Foxx I see it as a cul de sac best left aside at this juncture.

bolt
QUOTE (schneibster+)
Most of the real world is pretty complex; but made up of simple parts. People like you generally have trouble understanding that. It's kind of difficult with only one lonely brain cell, I guess.


The above statement is yet another example of the immature posts and lack of composure that the supporters of the official 9/11 story often resort to. It is yet another display of their inability to debate with maturity and patience. It is usually those who cannot seem to debate properly and who cannot seem to backup their very own points that often find it inevitable to resort to condescension and insults -- hoping to lure their opposition into a similar exchange so as to derail the progress of the real discussion at hand. Such tactics belong to liars and manipulators, not to those who are honest at heart.
frater plecticus
I author dvd's.

I also edit and direct film.

I would be more than willing to help in this.

I can also get hold of a HDV camera too.

I am temporarily in England.

I would need the dv tapes and the virgin dvd's.




Schneibster
Meta, I give you cred for being one of the few who can argue their way out of a paper bag- but I have to point out that Jones claims
1. the maximum temperature of the fire was 1000C, whereas the maximum temperatures for a hydrocarbon flame estimated elsewhere (I provided a link) are between 1100C and 1300C, depending on which curve you believe from that link.
2. Jones makes NO calculations and presents NO evidence regarding the movement of heat in the fires.

So your argument (not Jones', you'll note) is that most of the heat left by convection? Let's examine that.

By Wien's Law,
λ = 0.00289776829mK/T
Where λ is the wavelength in meters and
T is the temperature in kelvins.
Now, 1000C is 1273K. So,
λ = 0.00289776829mK/1273K = 2.276x10^-6 = 2.276 microns; this is the wavelength of the radiation peak of a black body at 1000C. Visible light extends from about 350nm to about 750nm; that is, from about 0.35 microns to about 0.75 microns. So this radiation peak is well into the infrared, which goes from the upper limit of the visible at 0.75 microns to 1mm, about 1000 microns. This radiation peak, therefore, is in the near infrared.

Now, firefighters use infrared to see through smoke; thus we see that smoke is more transparent to infrared than to visible light. Google "infrared vision smoke firefighters" and you'll find information in the first four hits about this. The implication is, the majority of the energy released from a 1000C fire will penetrate the smoke rather than be absorbed by it. Now, the fires were contained between two horizontal slabs of concrete 12 feet apart. Those slabs were 200 feet on a side. That means that over most of the floor, at least 75% of the directions around the fire were building, and the absolute minimum for a fire burning in empty space in the middle of a window would be around 45%; the same fire burning at the bottom of the window would see more than 55% of its surroundings as building. Thus, most of the radiated heat from a fire ten feet from the nearest window would be absorbed by the building, and that fraction gets higher the nearer the core one goes.

How about conduction? Well, concrete is a lousy conductor of heat, for a solid- and air is an even worse one. You can look that up. Basically, we can ignore conduction as a mode by which the heat leaves the fire.

That leaves only convection. It is your contention that the majority of the heat left this way. Unfortunately, this is not the common experience in fires. I refer you to this paper, which states, "Although radiation is the dominant heat-transfer mechanism in fires..." in its first sentence. See also this page, which states, "In the early history of a fire, convection plays a major role in moving the hot gases from the fire to the upper portions of the room of origin and throughout the building. As the room temperatures rise with the approach of flashover, convection continues, but the role of radiation increases rapidly and becomes the dominant heat transfer mechanism." The data from reliable sources does not support your contention; in fact, the dominant means by which heat leaves a fire is radiation.

QUOTE (metamars+)
The idea that a Ph.D. professor of physics would not know about simple heat condution and the difference between temperature and heat is silly.
I thought so too.

QUOTE (metamars+)
It seems to me that you are obfuscating, because you imply that steel is in direct contact with flame.
Nope. That would be conduction. Radiation does not require direct contact.

I think that addresses the points in your post. BTW, you should know better by now than to assume I'm obfuscating.
Schneibster
QUOTE (bolt+Jan 10 2006, 05:04 PM)
QUOTE (schneibster+)
Most of the real world is pretty complex; but made up of simple parts. People like you generally have trouble understanding that. It's kind of difficult with only one lonely brain cell, I guess.


The above statement is yet another example of the immature posts and lack of composure that the supporters of the official 9/11 story often resort to. It is yet another display of their inability to debate with maturity and patience. It is usually those who cannot seem to debate properly and who cannot seem to backup their very own points that often find it inevitable to resort to condescension and insults -- hoping to lure their opposition into a similar exchange so as to derail the progress of the real discussion at hand. Such tactics belong to liars and manipulators, not to those who are honest at heart.

I've little time and less patience to spend on people on a physics board who don't know any physics. If you have a physics argument, bring it. After being called a shill four times, I have little interest in politeness, and become nasty. Try not being insulting when it turns out you don't know any physics; ask questions. You'll get answers. OTOH, be insulting, and expect insults.

Show me where this individual, or you for that matter, has/have made a single supported, rational, technical argument that turned out to be correct.
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.