QUOTE (metamars+Jan 13 2006, 03:05 AM)
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
Guess who would profit?
Two investors who are part of Larry Silverstein's group that owns the World Trade Center lease are among the buyers of the Sears Tower, which MetLife Inc. agreed to sell Thursday for more than $800 million, according to people familiar with the situation.
http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyr...2-starkman.html
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 03:07 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 02:56 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 01:55 AM)
That is amazing, yesterday you were claiming the bolts sheered and caused the floor to pancake, today they are so strong they pull the core and perimeter wall down. At least you are finally realizing how ridicules your last theory was.
Pull down first, shear later- and this is just as dumb as asserting that angular momentum has anything to do with static forces. So yes, you DEFINITELY are this dumb. I'd suggest professional assistance, but I guess your head is comfortable up there now you're used to it.
You obviously have known idea how to figure out static forces. Don't claim I stated something I did not.
"known idea?" Good one. Obviously, you have "known idea" how to write English sentences.
Yes, folks, it really is that abysmally, inbredly, uncompromisingly, unbelievably stupid. I'm SURE someone who doesn't know the difference between "no" and "know" is an EXCELLENT candidate for nuclear physicist.
What a maroon.
Gee... at least TRY to keep your characters straight, obfuscator... That quote was under The 'Schneibster' penmanship.
/me is betting Faux has brown eyes, being it's so full of shitt.
Otherwise known as 'Disproportionate Global Progressive Collapse'
Well, that's enough fun for me tonight. Some of us have a Real Job.
Later.
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
Guess who would profit?
Two investors who are part of Larry Silverstein's group that owns the World Trade Center lease are among the buyers of the Sears Tower, which MetLife Inc. agreed to sell Thursday for more than $800 million, according to people familiar with the situation.
http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyr...2-starkman.html
Imagine that... the once owner a sky scraper wants to buy a sky scraper... What a fuccking leap of logic... I guess that means anyone who bought a car after having their car stolen must have stolen the car!
MORON!
Pull down first, shear later- and this is just as dumb as asserting that angular momentum has anything to do with static forces. So yes, you DEFINITELY are this dumb. I'd suggest professional assistance, but I guess your head is comfortable up there now you're used to it.
You obviously have known idea how to figure out static forces. Don't claim I stated something I did not.
"known idea?" Good one. Obviously, you have "known idea" how to write English sentences.
Yes, folks, it really is that abysmally, inbredly, uncompromisingly, unbelievably stupid. I'm SURE someone who doesn't know the difference between "no" and "know" is an EXCELLENT candidate for nuclear physicist.
What a maroon.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 13 2006, 04:18 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by cOMmOnSensE
It's the three legged stool he uses. I told him I had a saw.
It's the three legged stool he uses. I told him I had a saw.
Gee... at least TRY to keep your characters straight, obfuscator... That quote was under The 'Schneibster' penmanship.
/me is betting Faux has brown eyes, being it's so full of shitt.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Yid
You are , in effect, calling upon the forces of magic. Next up, the "Harry Potter Solution".
You are , in effect, calling upon the forces of magic. Next up, the "Harry Potter Solution".
Otherwise known as 'Disproportionate Global Progressive Collapse'
Well, that's enough fun for me tonight. Some of us have a Real Job.
Later.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 04:19 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 13 2006, 03:05 AM)
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
Guess who would profit?
Two investors who are part of Larry Silverstein's group that owns the World Trade Center lease are among the buyers of the Sears Tower, which MetLife Inc. agreed to sell Thursday for more than $800 million, according to people familiar with the situation.
http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyr...2-starkman.html
Imagine that... the once owner a sky scraper wants to buy a sky scraper... What a fuccking leap of logic... I guess that means anyone who bought a car after having their car stolen must have stolen the car!
MORON!
Yep, noticed no technical content today, Faux. Having a little cognitive dissonance problem there, sport?
Looks that way.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 13 2006, 03:23 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 13 2006, 03:05 AM)
I told you so. Demolition NEED NOT be the same as explosives. :
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Componen...ser_hlrg.h2.jpg
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Beam Weapons Almost Ready for Battle
...
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
emphasis mine
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
Hi metamars!
Aren't these for high-altitude targets during 'boost phase' of ballistic missiles, when the targets are in thin/no atmosphere and closeer to the orbiting weapons platform? As I understand it, ION beam type weapons cannot penetrate clouds or go nowhere near the distance through denser atmosphere to the ground. And the laser beam type also are for high-altitude targeting due to rapid energy loss over long distances because the stronger the beam the more the air is ionised and the beam energy dissipated thereby. Any info on them having solved those problems? Plus the POWER SUPPLY systems are either thermochemical/electrochemical/nuclearelectric etc. The latter causing a 'one shot' self-destructive 'firing'; and even if the other types manage to survice the energy-density pulsing through their 'pumping/firing/focusing systems, the others present a logistics problem for 'refueling' because a great quantity of the 'chemical' precursors/fuels will be required after a 'shot'. Any info on that problem as well? Very interested; if you find any info, please post it here because I can't access websites as well as you guys because of my trusty but clunky system. Thanks, mate.
RC.
PS: If you can find out how their 'KINETIC ENERGY' (hypersonic projectile/pellet) systems are coming along, I would be most interested in them too. BTW, these too would not be suitable for 'ground attack' because they work best in little/no atmosphere, due to them being quickly 'drag-decelerated' to ordinary 'terminal velocity' speeds before reaching the ground. Thanks.
PPS: I haven't heard much about the 'focused microwave' and the 'focused sunlight' systems either. Any updates on them? Thanks.
"Any info on them having solved those problems?"
No. I don't have access to classified weapons systems. Since lasers are used to measure distances from here to the Moon, I'm quite sure that they can go through the atmosphere. Attenuation and scattering characteristics, you have to ask somebody else.
"Plus the POWER SUPPLY systems are either thermochemical/electrochemical/nuclearelectric etc. The latter causing a 'one shot' self-destructive 'firing'; "
I have noted in this thread that I vaguely recalled reports of "one shot" chemical power sources for ABM lasers.
Hoffman abandoned his maser hypothesis, but "one shot" power sources powering devices not from outer space, but rather from the basement of the WTC buildings, may explain the huge amount of heat persisting for weeks afterwards.
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
Guess who would profit?
Two investors who are part of Larry Silverstein's group that owns the World Trade Center lease are among the buyers of the Sears Tower, which MetLife Inc. agreed to sell Thursday for more than $800 million, according to people familiar with the situation.
http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyr...2-starkman.html
steve1957 will now be claiming that this is proof that metamars is in the employ of Silverstein.
Quick change those posts. Substitute "Seattle Space Needle" for "Sears Tower".
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Componen...ser_hlrg.h2.jpg
QUOTE
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Beam Weapons Almost Ready for Battle
...
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
emphasis mine
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
Hi metamars!
Aren't these for high-altitude targets during 'boost phase' of ballistic missiles, when the targets are in thin/no atmosphere and closeer to the orbiting weapons platform? As I understand it, ION beam type weapons cannot penetrate clouds or go nowhere near the distance through denser atmosphere to the ground. And the laser beam type also are for high-altitude targeting due to rapid energy loss over long distances because the stronger the beam the more the air is ionised and the beam energy dissipated thereby. Any info on them having solved those problems? Plus the POWER SUPPLY systems are either thermochemical/electrochemical/nuclearelectric etc. The latter causing a 'one shot' self-destructive 'firing'; and even if the other types manage to survice the energy-density pulsing through their 'pumping/firing/focusing systems, the others present a logistics problem for 'refueling' because a great quantity of the 'chemical' precursors/fuels will be required after a 'shot'. Any info on that problem as well? Very interested; if you find any info, please post it here because I can't access websites as well as you guys because of my trusty but clunky system. Thanks, mate.
RC.
PS: If you can find out how their 'KINETIC ENERGY' (hypersonic projectile/pellet) systems are coming along, I would be most interested in them too. BTW, these too would not be suitable for 'ground attack' because they work best in little/no atmosphere, due to them being quickly 'drag-decelerated' to ordinary 'terminal velocity' speeds before reaching the ground. Thanks.
PPS: I haven't heard much about the 'focused microwave' and the 'focused sunlight' systems either. Any updates on them? Thanks.
"Any info on them having solved those problems?"
No. I don't have access to classified weapons systems. Since lasers are used to measure distances from here to the Moon, I'm quite sure that they can go through the atmosphere. Attenuation and scattering characteristics, you have to ask somebody else.
"Plus the POWER SUPPLY systems are either thermochemical/electrochemical/nuclearelectric etc. The latter causing a 'one shot' self-destructive 'firing'; "
I have noted in this thread that I vaguely recalled reports of "one shot" chemical power sources for ABM lasers.
Hoffman abandoned his maser hypothesis, but "one shot" power sources powering devices not from outer space, but rather from the basement of the WTC buildings, may explain the huge amount of heat persisting for weeks afterwards.
Schneibster, are you from the north east by any chance? I have this feeling you're from the north east by the way you communicate. I met people like reasonwhy and foxx in the south but you don't act like them. They act typically inbreed. 
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 04:19 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 13 2006, 03:05 AM)
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
Guess who would profit?
Two investors who are part of Larry Silverstein's group that owns the World Trade Center lease are among the buyers of the Sears Tower, which MetLife Inc. agreed to sell Thursday for more than $800 million, according to people familiar with the situation.
http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyr...2-starkman.html
steve1957 will now be claiming that this is proof that metamars is in the employ of Silverstein.
Quick change those posts. Substitute "Seattle Space Needle" for "Sears Tower".
Nope, northwest. But definitely not from the land of the inbred and those who think that being subtly nasty is somehow "better" than being overt about it.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 04:36 AM)
Schneibster, are you from the north east by any chance? I have this feeling you're from the north east by the way you communicate. I met people like reasonwhy and foxx in the south but you don't act like them. They act typically inbreed.
Foxx is from the left coast of Canada, la-la Land, the province of British Columbia , a province of contradictions in politics that seems to have no middle, either conservative of leftist, but it in no way resembles the American southland.
Foxx is from the left coast of Canada, la-la Land, the province of British Columbia , a province of contradictions in politics that seems to have no middle, either conservative of leftist, but it in no way resembles the American southland.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 13 2006, 04:32 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 13 2006, 03:23 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 13 2006, 03:05 AM)
I told you so. Demolition NEED NOT be the same as explosives. :
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Componen...ser_hlrg.h2.jpg
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Beam Weapons Almost Ready for Battle
...
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
emphasis mine
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
Hi metamars!
Aren't these for high-altitude targets during 'boost phase' of ballistic missiles, when the targets are in thin/no atmosphere and closeer to the orbiting weapons platform? As I understand it, ION beam type weapons cannot penetrate clouds or go nowhere near the distance through denser atmosphere to the ground. And the laser beam type also are for high-altitude targeting due to rapid energy loss over long distances because the stronger the beam the more the air is ionised and the beam energy dissipated thereby. Any info on them having solved those problems? Plus the POWER SUPPLY systems are either thermochemical/electrochemical/nuclearelectric etc. The latter causing a 'one shot' self-destructive 'firing'; and even if the other types manage to survice the energy-density pulsing through their 'pumping/firing/focusing systems, the others present a logistics problem for 'refueling' because a great quantity of the 'chemical' precursors/fuels will be required after a 'shot'. Any info on that problem as well? Very interested; if you find any info, please post it here because I can't access websites as well as you guys because of my trusty but clunky system. Thanks, mate.
RC.
PS: If you can find out how their 'KINETIC ENERGY' (hypersonic projectile/pellet) systems are coming along, I would be most interested in them too. BTW, these too would not be suitable for 'ground attack' because they work best in little/no atmosphere, due to them being quickly 'drag-decelerated' to ordinary 'terminal velocity' speeds before reaching the ground. Thanks.
PPS: I haven't heard much about the 'focused microwave' and the 'focused sunlight' systems either. Any updates on them? Thanks.
"Any info on them having solved those problems?"
No. I don't have access to classified weapons systems. Since lasers are used to measure distances from here to the Moon, I'm quite sure that they can go through the atmosphere. Attenuation and scattering characteristics, you have to ask somebody else.
"Plus the POWER SUPPLY systems are either thermochemical/electrochemical/nuclearelectric etc. The latter causing a 'one shot' self-destructive 'firing'; "
I have noted in this thread that I vaguely recalled reports of "one shot" chemical power sources for ABM lasers.
Hoffman abandoned his maser hypothesis, but "one shot" power sources powering devices not from outer space, but rather from the basement of the WTC buildings, may explain the huge amount of heat persisting for weeks afterwards.
Hi met.
About the laser signal to the moon (and rflected signal back): Obviously, the 'signal-density' consists of a few photons, whereas the POWER-DENSITY for a weapon would consist of many orders of magnitude more photonic energy per unit cross-sectional area all the way to the target....and the more power density, the more ionisation, the more 'opacity' to the following parts of the beam etc.
About the fuel for the weapon power input: I thought the chemical fuel reactants are extremely exotic/corrosive and would be difficult to guarantee the safety of nearby people/stuctures in ordinary structures/situations on the ground for any length of time. Similar problems arise with the 'spent' nuclear materials after self-destructive weapons activation.
Sorry to hear of your limited info on these weapons; I had thought you might have saved me a lot of troublesome research 'updating' in this area. Oh well, thanks anyway, mate.
RC.
.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Componen...ser_hlrg.h2.jpg
QUOTE
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Beam Weapons Almost Ready for Battle
...
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
emphasis mine
Let's hope DOD doesn't decide it would be cool to do final testing on the Sears towers.
Hi metamars!
Aren't these for high-altitude targets during 'boost phase' of ballistic missiles, when the targets are in thin/no atmosphere and closeer to the orbiting weapons platform? As I understand it, ION beam type weapons cannot penetrate clouds or go nowhere near the distance through denser atmosphere to the ground. And the laser beam type also are for high-altitude targeting due to rapid energy loss over long distances because the stronger the beam the more the air is ionised and the beam energy dissipated thereby. Any info on them having solved those problems? Plus the POWER SUPPLY systems are either thermochemical/electrochemical/nuclearelectric etc. The latter causing a 'one shot' self-destructive 'firing'; and even if the other types manage to survice the energy-density pulsing through their 'pumping/firing/focusing systems, the others present a logistics problem for 'refueling' because a great quantity of the 'chemical' precursors/fuels will be required after a 'shot'. Any info on that problem as well? Very interested; if you find any info, please post it here because I can't access websites as well as you guys because of my trusty but clunky system. Thanks, mate.
RC.
PS: If you can find out how their 'KINETIC ENERGY' (hypersonic projectile/pellet) systems are coming along, I would be most interested in them too. BTW, these too would not be suitable for 'ground attack' because they work best in little/no atmosphere, due to them being quickly 'drag-decelerated' to ordinary 'terminal velocity' speeds before reaching the ground. Thanks.
PPS: I haven't heard much about the 'focused microwave' and the 'focused sunlight' systems either. Any updates on them? Thanks.
"Any info on them having solved those problems?"
No. I don't have access to classified weapons systems. Since lasers are used to measure distances from here to the Moon, I'm quite sure that they can go through the atmosphere. Attenuation and scattering characteristics, you have to ask somebody else.
"Plus the POWER SUPPLY systems are either thermochemical/electrochemical/nuclearelectric etc. The latter causing a 'one shot' self-destructive 'firing'; "
I have noted in this thread that I vaguely recalled reports of "one shot" chemical power sources for ABM lasers.
Hoffman abandoned his maser hypothesis, but "one shot" power sources powering devices not from outer space, but rather from the basement of the WTC buildings, may explain the huge amount of heat persisting for weeks afterwards.
Hi met.
About the laser signal to the moon (and rflected signal back): Obviously, the 'signal-density' consists of a few photons, whereas the POWER-DENSITY for a weapon would consist of many orders of magnitude more photonic energy per unit cross-sectional area all the way to the target....and the more power density, the more ionisation, the more 'opacity' to the following parts of the beam etc.
About the fuel for the weapon power input: I thought the chemical fuel reactants are extremely exotic/corrosive and would be difficult to guarantee the safety of nearby people/stuctures in ordinary structures/situations on the ground for any length of time. Similar problems arise with the 'spent' nuclear materials after self-destructive weapons activation.
Sorry to hear of your limited info on these weapons; I had thought you might have saved me a lot of troublesome research 'updating' in this area. Oh well, thanks anyway, mate.
RC.
.
You can tell when the shills have been defeated : "MORON" in 24 font, 3 posts to point out a typo by Foxx... Great arguments aren't they?
Luis aka Common Sense, don't you have a wedding to shoot? You're playing out of your league here.
Luis aka Common Sense, don't you have a wedding to shoot? You're playing out of your league here.
"Divine Justice," eh? Why don't you just use "jebus?" That would be a lot more appropriate, IMO.
Hey "Divine Justice," why don't you pull your head out of there before you start typing?
Hey "Divine Justice," why don't you pull your head out of there before you start typing?
Yeah! I see it now! A laser in the basement with mirrors on each floor in the core which hit each floor at different times simulating pancaking! Yeah, I believe it, I'm there... 
QUOTE (Divine Justice+Jan 13 2006, 04:49 AM)
You can tell when the shills have been defeated : "MORON" in 24 font, 3 posts to point out a typo by Foxx... Great arguments aren't they?
Luis aka Common Sense, don't you have a wedding to shoot? You're playing out of your league here.
FUCCK YOU in 24 font
You really don't know what you're dealing with here. You want to go toe to toe? Lets go you little bitch a$$.
Luis aka Common Sense, don't you have a wedding to shoot? You're playing out of your league here.
FUCCK YOU in 24 font
You really don't know what you're dealing with here. You want to go toe to toe? Lets go you little bitch a$$.
Schneibster...My sheep...You also will face the Justice of the Lord. Your soul is not clean.
QUOTE (Divine Justice+Jan 13 2006, 04:49 AM)
You can tell when the shills have been defeated : "MORON" in 24 font, 3 posts to point out a typo by Foxx... Great arguments aren't they?
Luis aka Common Sense, don't you have a wedding to shoot? You're playing out of your league here.
I must have shoved my fist up your *A$$ so far you can't show your face without seeing my fingers. Heh!
Luis aka Common Sense, don't you have a wedding to shoot? You're playing out of your league here.
I must have shoved my fist up your *A$$ so far you can't show your face without seeing my fingers. Heh!
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 13 2006, 03:38 AM)
A beam or laser weapon designed to 'kill' boosters or warheads would not need anywhere near the energy it would take to burn through steel columns from space.
Missiles are built only as strong as necessary to get the warheads into sub-orbital space. Any extra weight is dispensed with and thus shielding is thin and there is no armor. Warheads would be different since they must survive reentry but all one need do is burn a small hole in it and it will not survive reentry.
Then there is the very fact that there is no evidence that any of these weapons, let alone one on steroids that could target steel columns of a building, exist in orbit now much less 4 1/2 years ago.
What about a space based system that's designed to take out a battleship or destroyer? Would you bet your life that DOD lacked the imagination to study the feasibility of that?
If you believe that they lacked the funds to pursue such a line of inquiry, if they so desired, you're a fool. And with 20 years work on such systems, if they solved the "battleship" problem, your concerns wouldn't amount to much.
You raise (mostly) good points, taken in isolation. However, you seem to want us to extrapolate these points as limititations of an organization which can't account for trillions of dollars and which has a poor record wrt not only war crimes, but concern about POW's, MIA's, and veterans.*
I would suggest that a "faith" in either the goodness or lack of capability of DOD is naive and misplaced.
Also, FWIW, if I was designing a space-based ABM system, I would not assume that I have pinpoint aim, though this is obviously an unspoken assumption you make. If these are one-and-done systems, a shotgun approach makes more sense to me in that your aim can be off and still be deadly. Then too, scattering (perhaps due to interaction with the atmosphere) may mean that your real problem is focussing the beam, and your scenario becomes even less inevitable than you seem to imply.
And if they did have pinpoint aim, why didn't they take out whatever hit the Pentagon on 9/11? Oh, that's right, the radars were "pointing in the wrong direction". How could I forget?
* It's possible that the abandonment of POW's and MIA's is more due to politicians than the Pentagon, but only a compliant Pentagon would go along with such betrayal. See "Kiss the Boys Goodbye" for details.
Missiles are built only as strong as necessary to get the warheads into sub-orbital space. Any extra weight is dispensed with and thus shielding is thin and there is no armor. Warheads would be different since they must survive reentry but all one need do is burn a small hole in it and it will not survive reentry.
Then there is the very fact that there is no evidence that any of these weapons, let alone one on steroids that could target steel columns of a building, exist in orbit now much less 4 1/2 years ago.
What about a space based system that's designed to take out a battleship or destroyer? Would you bet your life that DOD lacked the imagination to study the feasibility of that?
If you believe that they lacked the funds to pursue such a line of inquiry, if they so desired, you're a fool. And with 20 years work on such systems, if they solved the "battleship" problem, your concerns wouldn't amount to much.
You raise (mostly) good points, taken in isolation. However, you seem to want us to extrapolate these points as limititations of an organization which can't account for trillions of dollars and which has a poor record wrt not only war crimes, but concern about POW's, MIA's, and veterans.*
I would suggest that a "faith" in either the goodness or lack of capability of DOD is naive and misplaced.
Also, FWIW, if I was designing a space-based ABM system, I would not assume that I have pinpoint aim, though this is obviously an unspoken assumption you make. If these are one-and-done systems, a shotgun approach makes more sense to me in that your aim can be off and still be deadly. Then too, scattering (perhaps due to interaction with the atmosphere) may mean that your real problem is focussing the beam, and your scenario becomes even less inevitable than you seem to imply.
And if they did have pinpoint aim, why didn't they take out whatever hit the Pentagon on 9/11? Oh, that's right, the radars were "pointing in the wrong direction". How could I forget?
* It's possible that the abandonment of POW's and MIA's is more due to politicians than the Pentagon, but only a compliant Pentagon would go along with such betrayal. See "Kiss the Boys Goodbye" for details.
QUOTE (Divine Justice+Jan 13 2006, 04:58 AM)
Schneibster...My sheep...You also will face the Justice of the Lord. Your soul is not clean.
Heh... any guesses as to who the mysterious unregistered "Divine Justice" is?
My gracious golly gee, he's now employing an entire choir! Even arguing with himself from totally different viewpoints
Hilarious !!!
Heh... any guesses as to who the mysterious unregistered "Divine Justice" is?
My gracious golly gee, he's now employing an entire choir! Even arguing with himself from totally different viewpoints
Hilarious !!!
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 13 2006, 05:08 AM)
QUOTE (Divine Justice+Jan 13 2006, 04:58 AM)
Schneibster...My sheep...You also will face the Justice of the Lord. Your soul is not clean.
Heh... any guesses as to who the mysterious unregistered "Divine Justice" is?
My gracious golly gee, he's now employing an entire choir! Even arguing with himself
Hilarious !!!
Divine Justice
BTW, your friends in Madison know you dress like that?
Heh... any guesses as to who the mysterious unregistered "Divine Justice" is?
My gracious golly gee, he's now employing an entire choir! Even arguing with himself
Hilarious !!!
Divine Justice
BTW, your friends in Madison know you dress like that?
Foxx, see how Common Sense is 'enjoying' his public exposure...
More to come, stay tuned.
More to come, stay tuned.
QUOTE (Divine Justice+Jan 13 2006, 05:14 AM)
Foxx, see how Common Sense is 'enjoying' his public exposure...
More to come, stay tuned.
Unlike you I don't give a fucck.
More to come, stay tuned.
Unlike you I don't give a fucck.
QUOTE (Divine Justice+Jan 13 2006, 05:14 AM)
Foxx, see how Common Sense is 'enjoying' his public exposure...
More to come, stay tuned.
Can't promise... but I'll try NOT to miss an episode, Schneibster.
Seriously though... consider seeking professional counselling.
More to come, stay tuned.
Can't promise... but I'll try NOT to miss an episode, Schneibster.
Seriously though... consider seeking professional counselling.
QUOTE (Divine Justice+Jan 13 2006, 05:14 AM)
Foxx, see how Common Sense is 'enjoying' his public exposure...
More to come, stay tuned.
Seems like you can't even get Foxx to give a shiit. HEHEHE!
More to come, stay tuned.
Seems like you can't even get Foxx to give a shiit. HEHEHE!
Maybe someone can shed some light for me. After watching video of the collapse it appears quite obvious that the inner core columns failed simultaneously, as evidenced by the way the entire portion of the building above impact (the motion begins at the antenna connected to the hat truss) drops at all once.
Does NIST reconcile this in any way in their report? Am I missing something? Did I skim the report to quickly?
Does NIST reconcile this in any way in their report? Am I missing something? Did I skim the report to quickly?
QUOTE (Divine Justice+Jan 13 2006, 04:58 AM)
Schneibster...My sheep...You also will face the Justice of the Lord. Your soul is not clean.
My soul doesn't exist- I don't base my morals on books by neolithic goat herders.
My soul doesn't exist- I don't base my morals on books by neolithic goat herders.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 05:12 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 13 2006, 05:08 AM)
QUOTE (Divine Justice+Jan 13 2006, 04:58 AM)
Schneibster...My sheep...You also will face the Justice of the Lord. Your soul is not clean.
Heh... any guesses as to who the mysterious unregistered "Divine Justice" is?
My gracious golly gee, he's now employing an entire choir! Even arguing with himself
Hilarious !!!
Divine Justice
BTW, your friends in Madison know you dress like that?
Heh... any guesses as to who the mysterious unregistered "Divine Justice" is?
My gracious golly gee, he's now employing an entire choir! Even arguing with himself
Hilarious !!!
Divine Justice
BTW, your friends in Madison know you dress like that?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 13 2006, 04:45 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 04:36 AM)
Schneibster, are you from the north east by any chance? I have this feeling you're from the north east by the way you communicate. I met people like reasonwhy and foxx in the south but you don't act like them. They act typically inbreed.
Foxx is from the left coast of Canada, la-la Land, the province of British Columbia , a province of contradictions in politics that seems to have no middle, either conservative of leftist, but it in no way resembles the American southland.
Ehhh???
We only seem 'contradictory' because we do not fit a mold.
Interesting eastern viewpoint YID.
Actually I think BC'ites are for the most part like I... 'middle-grounders'.
To be honest... I do not understand the 'differences' between 'conservative' or 'leftist' / Republican or Democrat / Liberal or Conservative (or ANY of these titles). They ALL seem to be extremists (to me)
The majority of people I know reject both 'extremes' (if they ARE 'extremes').
As I see it 'they' are all the same.
I don't even see myself as a BC'er (except in some vague concept).
I'd be quite happy to 'pull' the anchors on Vancouver Island and sail the island off into the sunset
I have no affiliations to any 'party', 'wing', or 'nation'.
I believe we are all ONE, and MUST stand for TRUTH (regardless of whether that TRUTH fits with our personal 'leanings' OR NOT)
As a sidenote... tell me the truth here... are you 'fooled' with The Schneibsters antics? ...
(not related to 9/11 issues - but rather the psychological issues)? Forget 9/11 for a minute- this guy has some 'issues'.
Cheers.
Oh, are you leaving again?
Foxx is from the left coast of Canada, la-la Land, the province of British Columbia , a province of contradictions in politics that seems to have no middle, either conservative of leftist, but it in no way resembles the American southland.
Ehhh???
We only seem 'contradictory' because we do not fit a mold.
Interesting eastern viewpoint YID.
Actually I think BC'ites are for the most part like I... 'middle-grounders'.
To be honest... I do not understand the 'differences' between 'conservative' or 'leftist' / Republican or Democrat / Liberal or Conservative (or ANY of these titles). They ALL seem to be extremists (to me)
The majority of people I know reject both 'extremes' (if they ARE 'extremes').
As I see it 'they' are all the same.
I don't even see myself as a BC'er (except in some vague concept).
I'd be quite happy to 'pull' the anchors on Vancouver Island and sail the island off into the sunset
I have no affiliations to any 'party', 'wing', or 'nation'.
I believe we are all ONE, and MUST stand for TRUTH (regardless of whether that TRUTH fits with our personal 'leanings' OR NOT)
As a sidenote... tell me the truth here... are you 'fooled' with The Schneibsters antics? ...
(not related to 9/11 issues - but rather the psychological issues)? Forget 9/11 for a minute- this guy has some 'issues'.
Cheers.
/me MIGHT have objected to outing people on the 'Net, had it not already been done to others by those who now appear to be being outed.
What a shame. Not.
What a shame. Not.
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 13 2006, 05:33 AM)
Maybe someone can shed some light for me. After watching video of the collapse it appears quite obvious that the inner core columns failed simultaneously, as evidenced by the way the entire portion of the building above impact (the motion begins at the antenna connected to the hat truss) drops at all once.
Does NIST reconcile this in any way in their report? Am I missing something? Did I skim the report to quickly?
No, you didn't miss nothin. NIST screwed it up. They got the collapse initiation mechanism wrong despite spendin a few years and a few hundred million bucks on it, and despite hedgin their bets six ways from sunday. F**kin bureaucrats can't get nothin right.
Does NIST reconcile this in any way in their report? Am I missing something? Did I skim the report to quickly?
No, you didn't miss nothin. NIST screwed it up. They got the collapse initiation mechanism wrong despite spendin a few years and a few hundred million bucks on it, and despite hedgin their bets six ways from sunday. F**kin bureaucrats can't get nothin right.
That's amazing. It seems pretty obvious to me that the collapse had to be initiated at the core columns. I don't see how this wasn't the focus of their study.
(guest was me I forgot to log in)
(guest was me I forgot to log in)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 13 2006, 05:50 AM)
As a sidenote... tell me the truth here... are you 'fooled' with The Schneibsters antics? ...
(not related to 9/11 issues - but rather the psychological issues)? Forget 9/11 for a minute- this guy has some 'issues'.
It would appear that you've been nasty and full of shitt enough that a number of folks have decided they don't like what you have to say on this thread. Looks like a bunch of people decided they agree with me and DON'T LIKE YOU, Faux. Looks like in order to address your insecurity about the fact that people generally DON'T like you, you feel the need to pretend that they're all sock puppets of me. Fact is, Faux, they're not; to the best of my knowledge, each one is a separate user; the possibility exists that they are sock puppets of one or a few users, but I have strong reason to believe that they're not. I have no trouble identifying them one from another. It seems that you do, and I doubt that's because you're not capable of it; I think rather that it leads to a conclusion that doesn't reflect very well on you, and that you'd rather weren't true.
That's not surprising. Most people don't like people who go around lying all the time and who can't seem to get it through their heads that a subtle insult is more reprehensible than forthright hostility. I'm betting you can't think of more than about three people you'd call "friend," at least not the way I mean friend, which is not merely ally, and quite possibly none at all, because I seriously doubt that the personality you bring here is any different from the one you have in RL. It's too bad, really; you're obviously intelligent enough to know better than to act like this. I offered the olive branch to you once already, and you spit on it. I don't believe I'll offer it again. That option is closed to you. What that means is that I will attack you any time I can identify you, and that I despise you, and that I believe that you are twisted, that there is something seriously wrong inside you that I don't believe will ever get better.
For your information, I use one and only one identity on the 'Net, hard as that may be for you to comprehend. Unlike you, I don't feel the need for sock puppets to form a geek chorus to "prove" I'm right or show I'm "popular" or something, and it's clear to me that the reason you have to do this is because you have no friends. And if you'll notice, that probably means that the only people who like you are the weirdo tin-foil hat crowd, because they're just as disfunctional as you are; and get crosswise of one of them, and they'll turn on you, Faux. That's the difference between an ally and a friend, and it's not one you seem to understand.
The problem that you have is called "sociopathology." What it stems from is an inability to comprehend that other people are REAL PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU. I hate to say it, but I don't think you'll ever change, and quite frankly, Faux, I really don't care whether you do. I just hope you go under a bus before you hurt someone and find out you like it.
See ya, loser, 'cause I wouldn't wanna be ya.
(not related to 9/11 issues - but rather the psychological issues)? Forget 9/11 for a minute- this guy has some 'issues'.
It would appear that you've been nasty and full of shitt enough that a number of folks have decided they don't like what you have to say on this thread. Looks like a bunch of people decided they agree with me and DON'T LIKE YOU, Faux. Looks like in order to address your insecurity about the fact that people generally DON'T like you, you feel the need to pretend that they're all sock puppets of me. Fact is, Faux, they're not; to the best of my knowledge, each one is a separate user; the possibility exists that they are sock puppets of one or a few users, but I have strong reason to believe that they're not. I have no trouble identifying them one from another. It seems that you do, and I doubt that's because you're not capable of it; I think rather that it leads to a conclusion that doesn't reflect very well on you, and that you'd rather weren't true.
That's not surprising. Most people don't like people who go around lying all the time and who can't seem to get it through their heads that a subtle insult is more reprehensible than forthright hostility. I'm betting you can't think of more than about three people you'd call "friend," at least not the way I mean friend, which is not merely ally, and quite possibly none at all, because I seriously doubt that the personality you bring here is any different from the one you have in RL. It's too bad, really; you're obviously intelligent enough to know better than to act like this. I offered the olive branch to you once already, and you spit on it. I don't believe I'll offer it again. That option is closed to you. What that means is that I will attack you any time I can identify you, and that I despise you, and that I believe that you are twisted, that there is something seriously wrong inside you that I don't believe will ever get better.
For your information, I use one and only one identity on the 'Net, hard as that may be for you to comprehend. Unlike you, I don't feel the need for sock puppets to form a geek chorus to "prove" I'm right or show I'm "popular" or something, and it's clear to me that the reason you have to do this is because you have no friends. And if you'll notice, that probably means that the only people who like you are the weirdo tin-foil hat crowd, because they're just as disfunctional as you are; and get crosswise of one of them, and they'll turn on you, Faux. That's the difference between an ally and a friend, and it's not one you seem to understand.
The problem that you have is called "sociopathology." What it stems from is an inability to comprehend that other people are REAL PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU. I hate to say it, but I don't think you'll ever change, and quite frankly, Faux, I really don't care whether you do. I just hope you go under a bus before you hurt someone and find out you like it.
See ya, loser, 'cause I wouldn't wanna be ya.
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 13 2006, 06:23 AM)
That's amazing. It seems pretty obvious to me that the collapse had to be initiated at the core columns. I don't see how this wasn't the focus of their study.
(guest was me I forgot to log in)
Why does it have to be the core columns?
(guest was me I forgot to log in)
Why does it have to be the core columns?
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 13 2006, 06:23 AM)
That's amazing. It seems pretty obvious to me that the collapse had to be initiated at the core columns. I don't see how this wasn't the focus of their study.
(guest was me I forgot to log in)
Actually Cosmos, The new revised NIST theory IS that the collapse WAS initiated at the core columns.
We are just having fun with these obfuscating dinosaurs who haven't caught up to the new theory they are supposed to be supporting that the initiation of collapse began at the core.
It's a 'private' joke that we keep feeding Schneibster's choir with the pretend situation that there is some plausibility to the already discredited 'pancaking floors' theory.
They like to quote NIST, without having any understanding that the latest NIST postulation is that the collapse was initiated by Amazing Hiding Fires weakening the core columns, and that it was actually core columns that succumbed to initiate the collapse.
Still, NIST holds out the olive branch to the pancakers that 'also' (in some slight way the 'pancaking floors' is still somehow 'contributory'... truss seat failures etc.)...
but even NIST has now accepted that the initiation of collapse was due to core-column failures... (caused by Amazing Imaginary Hiding Fires), aligning themselves with the Weidlinger theory moreso than the Idiot Eagar Theory (popularized by NOVA... and still promoted by those with only a cursory examination of the NIST documents... or 'pretenders').
(guest was me I forgot to log in)
Actually Cosmos, The new revised NIST theory IS that the collapse WAS initiated at the core columns.
We are just having fun with these obfuscating dinosaurs who haven't caught up to the new theory they are supposed to be supporting that the initiation of collapse began at the core.
It's a 'private' joke that we keep feeding Schneibster's choir with the pretend situation that there is some plausibility to the already discredited 'pancaking floors' theory.
They like to quote NIST, without having any understanding that the latest NIST postulation is that the collapse was initiated by Amazing Hiding Fires weakening the core columns, and that it was actually core columns that succumbed to initiate the collapse.
Still, NIST holds out the olive branch to the pancakers that 'also' (in some slight way the 'pancaking floors' is still somehow 'contributory'... truss seat failures etc.)...
but even NIST has now accepted that the initiation of collapse was due to core-column failures... (caused by Amazing Imaginary Hiding Fires), aligning themselves with the Weidlinger theory moreso than the Idiot Eagar Theory (popularized by NOVA... and still promoted by those with only a cursory examination of the NIST documents... or 'pretenders').
See, cosmo, Faux whole delusional structure is predicated on the fact that anyone who opposes it has to be part of some conspiracy, and if someone actually disagrees with BOTH it AND NIST, it doesn't know what to do with that. I wouldn't count on it for any real information; it's more interested in its paranoid conspiracy, and it's not likely to be friendly to you if you decide you're more interested in the truth than in its conspiracy theory.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
See ya, loser, 'cause I wouldn't wanna be ya.
See ya, loser, 'cause I wouldn't wanna be ya.
Oh, are you leaving again?
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 06:45 AM)
Why does it have to be the core columns?
The whole top piece starts falling all as one. The antenna can seen moving at the exact instant that the floors directly above the impact begin to descend. The antenna sat on the hat truss, the hat truss was centered over the core columns like an umbrella and connected to the perimeter columns. I don't see how the hat truss w/ antenna can collapse without the core columns all giving out.
I've read that the core columns should've been able to support the wieght of the stucture on their own. The NIST report estimates (guesses) that 6 core columns out of 47 were crippled.
Based on this observation alone, I don't really see any relevance to buckling trusses or collapsing floors at the impact zone being used to explain "global collapse initiation". It seems to me the failure of the core columns needs to be fully addressed by any theory.
The whole top piece starts falling all as one. The antenna can seen moving at the exact instant that the floors directly above the impact begin to descend. The antenna sat on the hat truss, the hat truss was centered over the core columns like an umbrella and connected to the perimeter columns. I don't see how the hat truss w/ antenna can collapse without the core columns all giving out.
I've read that the core columns should've been able to support the wieght of the stucture on their own. The NIST report estimates (guesses) that 6 core columns out of 47 were crippled.
Based on this observation alone, I don't really see any relevance to buckling trusses or collapsing floors at the impact zone being used to explain "global collapse initiation". It seems to me the failure of the core columns needs to be fully addressed by any theory.
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 13 2006, 07:09 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 06:45 AM)
Why does it have to be the core columns?
The whole top piece starts falling all as one. The antenna can seen moving at the exact instant that the floors directly above the impact begin to descend. The antenna sat on the hat truss, the hat truss was centered over the core columns like an umbrella and connected to the perimeter columns. I don't see how the hat truss w/ antenna can collapse without the core columns all giving out.
I've read that the core columns should've been able to support the wieght of the stucture on their own. The NIST report estimates (guesses) that 6 core columns out of 47 were crippled.
Based on this observation alone, I don't really see any relevance to buckling trusses or collapsing floors at the impact zone being used to explain "global collapse initiation". It seems to me the failure of the core columns needs to be fully addressed by any theory.
Well, here's the thing, cosmo: if floors inside the building started falling, how would you know? The first thing you'd see would be the outside of the building starting to come down, but that doesn't mean nothing else has been happening before that inside where you couldn't see it.
As it turns out, if you're looking for it, you can SEE the floors falling inside BEFORE the antenna or parapet move, in this video from 911research. It starts at the 6th frame of the 16th second, just about two frames before the parapet and antenna move. You can also see the smoke cloud ejected from the far side by the floor collapses; it emerges from behind the building. But you'll need a big screen, and a good player, and the ability to single step through the frames. Once you've identified that first floor collapse, you'll begin to understand just how big the building is, and how small a thing a single floor collapse seems to be; but it IMMEDIATELY preceeds the collapse of the parapet and antenna. There can be no question that the first thing to happen was a floor collapse. Look for yourself.
The whole top piece starts falling all as one. The antenna can seen moving at the exact instant that the floors directly above the impact begin to descend. The antenna sat on the hat truss, the hat truss was centered over the core columns like an umbrella and connected to the perimeter columns. I don't see how the hat truss w/ antenna can collapse without the core columns all giving out.
I've read that the core columns should've been able to support the wieght of the stucture on their own. The NIST report estimates (guesses) that 6 core columns out of 47 were crippled.
Based on this observation alone, I don't really see any relevance to buckling trusses or collapsing floors at the impact zone being used to explain "global collapse initiation". It seems to me the failure of the core columns needs to be fully addressed by any theory.
Well, here's the thing, cosmo: if floors inside the building started falling, how would you know? The first thing you'd see would be the outside of the building starting to come down, but that doesn't mean nothing else has been happening before that inside where you couldn't see it.
As it turns out, if you're looking for it, you can SEE the floors falling inside BEFORE the antenna or parapet move, in this video from 911research. It starts at the 6th frame of the 16th second, just about two frames before the parapet and antenna move. You can also see the smoke cloud ejected from the far side by the floor collapses; it emerges from behind the building. But you'll need a big screen, and a good player, and the ability to single step through the frames. Once you've identified that first floor collapse, you'll begin to understand just how big the building is, and how small a thing a single floor collapse seems to be; but it IMMEDIATELY preceeds the collapse of the parapet and antenna. There can be no question that the first thing to happen was a floor collapse. Look for yourself.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 07:58 AM)
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 13 2006, 07:09 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 06:45 AM)
Why does it have to be the core columns?
The whole top piece starts falling all as one. The antenna can seen moving at the exact instant that the floors directly above the impact begin to descend. The antenna sat on the hat truss, the hat truss was centered over the core columns like an umbrella and connected to the perimeter columns. I don't see how the hat truss w/ antenna can collapse without the core columns all giving out.
I've read that the core columns should've been able to support the wieght of the stucture on their own. The NIST report estimates (guesses) that 6 core columns out of 47 were crippled.
Based on this observation alone, I don't really see any relevance to buckling trusses or collapsing floors at the impact zone being used to explain "global collapse initiation". It seems to me the failure of the core columns needs to be fully addressed by any theory.
Well, here's the thing, cosmo: if floors inside the building started falling, how would you know? The first thing you'd see would be the outside of the building starting to come down, but that doesn't mean nothing else has been happening before that inside where you couldn't see it.
As it turns out, if you're looking for it, you can SEE the floors falling inside BEFORE the antenna or parapet move, in this video from 911research. It starts at the 6th frame of the 16th second, just about two frames before the parapet and antenna move. You can also see the smoke cloud ejected from the far side by the floor collapses; it emerges from behind the building. But you'll need a big screen, and a good player, and the ability to single step through the frames. Once you've identified that first floor collapse, you'll begin to understand just how big the building is, and how small a thing a single floor collapse seems to be; but it IMMEDIATELY preceeds the collapse of the parapet and antenna. There can be no question that the first thing to happen was a floor collapse. Look for yourself.
cosmo, whileyour at it with the full screen and the step by step see if you can spot the evil Islamic terrorists passport gliding by please.
Like i said nearly 200 pages ago , physics alone CANNOT EXPLAIN the twin towers collapse
contact
fraterplecticus at googlemail.com
p.s Belief is the death of intelligence
The whole top piece starts falling all as one. The antenna can seen moving at the exact instant that the floors directly above the impact begin to descend. The antenna sat on the hat truss, the hat truss was centered over the core columns like an umbrella and connected to the perimeter columns. I don't see how the hat truss w/ antenna can collapse without the core columns all giving out.
I've read that the core columns should've been able to support the wieght of the stucture on their own. The NIST report estimates (guesses) that 6 core columns out of 47 were crippled.
Based on this observation alone, I don't really see any relevance to buckling trusses or collapsing floors at the impact zone being used to explain "global collapse initiation". It seems to me the failure of the core columns needs to be fully addressed by any theory.
Well, here's the thing, cosmo: if floors inside the building started falling, how would you know? The first thing you'd see would be the outside of the building starting to come down, but that doesn't mean nothing else has been happening before that inside where you couldn't see it.
As it turns out, if you're looking for it, you can SEE the floors falling inside BEFORE the antenna or parapet move, in this video from 911research. It starts at the 6th frame of the 16th second, just about two frames before the parapet and antenna move. You can also see the smoke cloud ejected from the far side by the floor collapses; it emerges from behind the building. But you'll need a big screen, and a good player, and the ability to single step through the frames. Once you've identified that first floor collapse, you'll begin to understand just how big the building is, and how small a thing a single floor collapse seems to be; but it IMMEDIATELY preceeds the collapse of the parapet and antenna. There can be no question that the first thing to happen was a floor collapse. Look for yourself.
cosmo, whileyour at it with the full screen and the step by step see if you can spot the evil Islamic terrorists passport gliding by please.
Like i said nearly 200 pages ago , physics alone CANNOT EXPLAIN the twin towers collapse
contact
fraterplecticus at googlemail.com
p.s Belief is the death of intelligence
The NIST report also says each building had a different hypothesis for collapse.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Start at page 35. Note there are 4 reports:
•Possible Collapse Hypotheses(May 2003) –not building specific; key events not identified
•Working Collapse Hypothesis(June 2004) –single hypothesis for both WTC towers; identifies chronological sequence of major events
•Leading Collapse Hypotheses(October 2004) –separate hypothesis for each WTC tower; identifies building-specific load redistribution paths and damage scenarios in addition to chronological sequence of major events
•Probable Collapse Sequences(April 2005) –refined building specific collapse sequences with chronological sequence of majorevents, load redistribution paths, and damage scenarios.
No one should be taking anything from the may 2003 "Possible Collapse Hypotheses" and drawing any conclutions other than "This is what it looks like so far". The same goes for the others before the april 2005 report.
Building 1 factors:
1.Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the North wall from floors 93 to 98, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continuedto penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the North side of thecore. Core columns were also damaged toward the center of the core and, to a limited extent on the South side of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area to the South perimeter wall, primarily through the center of WTC 1 and at least over a third to a half of the core width.
•Aircraft impact severed a single exterior panel at the center ofthe South wall between floors 94 and 96.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls and to the core resultedin redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The hat truss resisted the downward movement of the North wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the North and South walls each carried about 7 percent less gravity loads after impact, and the East and West walls each carried about 7 percent more loads. The core carried about 1 percent more gravity loads after impact.
2.Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:
A.Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•The undamaged core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The shortening of the core columns (due to plasticity and creep)was resisted by the hat truss which unloaded the core over time and redistributed loads to perimeter walls.
•As a result of the thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact and prior to inward bowing of the South wall), the North and South walls each carried about10 percent more gravity loads, and the East and West walls each carried about 25 percentmore loads. The core carried about 20 percent less gravity loads after thermal weakening.
B.Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 95 to 99 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors and sagged. The floors sagged first and then contracted due to cooling on the North side; fires reached the South side later, the floors sagged, and the seat connections weakened.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the South wall columns.
•About 20 percent of the connections to the South perimeter wall on floors 97 and 98 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.
C.Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
3.Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the South wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire South face.
•The South wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent East and West walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled South face) to the South (at least about 8ş) as column instability progressed rapidly from the South wall along the adjacent East and West walls.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 2
1.Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the South wall from floors 78 to 84, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continuedto penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the Southeast corner of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area through the East half of the core up to the North and East perimeter walls. The floor truss seat connections over about 1/4to 1/2 of the East side of the core were severed on floors 80 and 81 and over about 1/3 of the East perimeter wall on floor 83.
•Aircraft impact severed a few columns near the East corner of the North wall between floors 80 and 82.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls resulted in redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The impact damage to the core columns resulted in redistribution of severed column loads mostly to other intact core columns and the East exterior wall. The hat truss resisted the downward movementof the South wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the core carried 6 percent less gravity loads after impact and the North face carried 10 percent less loads. The East face carried 24 percent more gravity load, while the West face and the South face carried 3 percent and 2 percent more gravity load, respectively.
•After impact, the core was leaning toward the East and South perimeter walls. The perimeter walls acted to restrain the core structure.
2.Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:
A.Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•Several of the undamaged core columns near the damaged and severed core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The core continued to tilt toward the East and South due to the combination of column shortening (due to plasticity, creep, and buckling) and the failure of column splices at the hat truss in the Southeast corner.
•As a result of thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact), theEast wall carried about 5 percent more gravity loads and the core carried about 2 percent less loads. The other three walls carried between 0 and 3 percent less loads.
B.Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 79 to 83 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors on the East side and sagged.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the East wall columns.
•About an additional 1/3 of the connections to the East perimeterwall on floor 83 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.
C.Thermal Weakening of the East Wall:
•East wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the East wall columns increased with time.
3.Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the East wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire East face.
•The East wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent North and South walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled East face) to the East (about 7şto 8ş) and South (about 3şto 4ş) as column instability progressed rapidly from the East wall along the adjacent North and South walls. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the East as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Start at page 35. Note there are 4 reports:
•Possible Collapse Hypotheses(May 2003) –not building specific; key events not identified
•Working Collapse Hypothesis(June 2004) –single hypothesis for both WTC towers; identifies chronological sequence of major events
•Leading Collapse Hypotheses(October 2004) –separate hypothesis for each WTC tower; identifies building-specific load redistribution paths and damage scenarios in addition to chronological sequence of major events
•Probable Collapse Sequences(April 2005) –refined building specific collapse sequences with chronological sequence of majorevents, load redistribution paths, and damage scenarios.
No one should be taking anything from the may 2003 "Possible Collapse Hypotheses" and drawing any conclutions other than "This is what it looks like so far". The same goes for the others before the april 2005 report.
Building 1 factors:
1.Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the North wall from floors 93 to 98, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continuedto penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the North side of thecore. Core columns were also damaged toward the center of the core and, to a limited extent on the South side of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area to the South perimeter wall, primarily through the center of WTC 1 and at least over a third to a half of the core width.
•Aircraft impact severed a single exterior panel at the center ofthe South wall between floors 94 and 96.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls and to the core resultedin redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The hat truss resisted the downward movement of the North wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the North and South walls each carried about 7 percent less gravity loads after impact, and the East and West walls each carried about 7 percent more loads. The core carried about 1 percent more gravity loads after impact.
2.Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:
A.Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•The undamaged core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The shortening of the core columns (due to plasticity and creep)was resisted by the hat truss which unloaded the core over time and redistributed loads to perimeter walls.
•As a result of the thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact and prior to inward bowing of the South wall), the North and South walls each carried about10 percent more gravity loads, and the East and West walls each carried about 25 percentmore loads. The core carried about 20 percent less gravity loads after thermal weakening.
B.Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 95 to 99 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors and sagged. The floors sagged first and then contracted due to cooling on the North side; fires reached the South side later, the floors sagged, and the seat connections weakened.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the South wall columns.
•About 20 percent of the connections to the South perimeter wall on floors 97 and 98 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.
C.Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
3.Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the South wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire South face.
•The South wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent East and West walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled South face) to the South (at least about 8ş) as column instability progressed rapidly from the South wall along the adjacent East and West walls.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 2
1.Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the South wall from floors 78 to 84, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continuedto penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the Southeast corner of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area through the East half of the core up to the North and East perimeter walls. The floor truss seat connections over about 1/4to 1/2 of the East side of the core were severed on floors 80 and 81 and over about 1/3 of the East perimeter wall on floor 83.
•Aircraft impact severed a few columns near the East corner of the North wall between floors 80 and 82.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls resulted in redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The impact damage to the core columns resulted in redistribution of severed column loads mostly to other intact core columns and the East exterior wall. The hat truss resisted the downward movementof the South wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the core carried 6 percent less gravity loads after impact and the North face carried 10 percent less loads. The East face carried 24 percent more gravity load, while the West face and the South face carried 3 percent and 2 percent more gravity load, respectively.
•After impact, the core was leaning toward the East and South perimeter walls. The perimeter walls acted to restrain the core structure.
2.Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:
A.Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•Several of the undamaged core columns near the damaged and severed core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The core continued to tilt toward the East and South due to the combination of column shortening (due to plasticity, creep, and buckling) and the failure of column splices at the hat truss in the Southeast corner.
•As a result of thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact), theEast wall carried about 5 percent more gravity loads and the core carried about 2 percent less loads. The other three walls carried between 0 and 3 percent less loads.
B.Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 79 to 83 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors on the East side and sagged.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the East wall columns.
•About an additional 1/3 of the connections to the East perimeterwall on floor 83 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.
C.Thermal Weakening of the East Wall:
•East wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the East wall columns increased with time.
3.Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the East wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire East face.
•The East wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent North and South walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled East face) to the East (about 7şto 8ş) and South (about 3şto 4ş) as column instability progressed rapidly from the East wall along the adjacent North and South walls. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the East as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Please remember, I showed a photo of the core still standing long enough for the dust to uncover it. This was a few seconds after global collapse of one of the buildings. So if you're suggesting the core was taken out from the basement or something, this couldn't have happened. (In at least one of the buildings) You can only be talking about the section of the core which is above the impact zone. right?
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 13 2006, 02:09 PM)
Like i said nearly 200 pages ago , physics alone CANNOT EXPLAIN the twin towers collapse
contact
fraterplecticus at googlemail.com
p.s Belief is the death of intelligence
Actually Schneibster explained it by page 5. The correct thing to say is "Like i said nearly 200 pages ago , physics alone CANNOT EXPLAIN the twin towers collapse to some people"
The rest is just..
contact
fraterplecticus at googlemail.com
p.s Belief is the death of intelligence
Actually Schneibster explained it by page 5. The correct thing to say is "Like i said nearly 200 pages ago , physics alone CANNOT EXPLAIN the twin towers collapse to some people"
The rest is just..
QUOTE (Temp+Jan 13 2006, 02:47 PM)
Hope this helps!
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
So BOTH towers had the core standing a few seconds after gobal collapse. Thanks temp, I didn't know both towers had the core standing that long. There goes the bomb in the core basement theory.
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
So BOTH towers had the core standing a few seconds after gobal collapse. Thanks temp, I didn't know both towers had the core standing that long. There goes the bomb in the core basement theory.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 06:42 AM)
The problem that you have is called "sociopathology." What it stems from is an inability to comprehend that other people are REAL PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU.
Odd quote for someone who tries to de-humanize their opponents by calling them them "it"...
Odd quote for someone who tries to de-humanize their opponents by calling them them "it"...
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 13 2006, 03:01 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 06:42 AM)
The problem that you have is called "sociopathology." What it stems from is an inability to comprehend that other people are REAL PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU.
Odd quote for someone who tries to de-humanize their opponents by calling them them "it"...
HAHAHA, As if the dehumanizing in this thread was started by Schneibster. I guess calling people shills for the government is endearing.
Ya gotta love the sock puppets...
Odd quote for someone who tries to de-humanize their opponents by calling them them "it"...
HAHAHA, As if the dehumanizing in this thread was started by Schneibster. I guess calling people shills for the government is endearing.
Ya gotta love the sock puppets...
Its in the hands of the American people.
We know how dynamic you can be, dont dissappoint us now that the future of so many depends on your actions in this matter.
---
CITIZENS COUNTER COUP
The formula for change now
The Concept
All who are concerned with the direction we're being taken as a nation need a simple yet powerful formula that will return the political decision-making process to We the People.
This will involve simply setting aside about 15-30 minutes per month to take a consistent action.
We will contact our legislators and targeted media list the week of the 11th of each month.
We pick this date to heighten awareness of the attacks of 9/11 and the neocon agenda which stated the need for a "New Pearl Harbor" in a document written by the neocon think tank "Project For A New American Century" titled "Rebuilding Our National Defenses".
For more background on the neocon agenda read these two excellent articles:
PNAC 101 - Rise of the Neocons
Possible Motives Of The Bush Administration - By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.3c.911truth.org/3c_concept.htm
The Action Plan
We need to urge our elected officials to take political action on the deception of 9/11. The process begins with informing them that we, as their constituents, desire truth, accountability and justice for the real crimes of 9/11. Additionally, they must know that we will support their actions if they heed our call, or withhold our support if they don't. Since nearly 250 Congressmen have signed a petition to allow a hearing on Able Danger, it's safe to assume that there is a growing awareness on the issues of 9/11 and willingness to act. Our monthly campaign described below will further this process.
Also, a variety of issues related to 9/11 has been visible in recent news coverage ranging from the Muslim FDNY Chaplain to Professor Steven Jones. This is gradually broadening public awareness and raising serious doubts on the official account of 9/11. Therefore, now is the perfect time to participate in democracy by taking the following 3 steps --
http://3c.911truth.org/3c_action.htm
We know how dynamic you can be, dont dissappoint us now that the future of so many depends on your actions in this matter.
---
CITIZENS COUNTER COUP
The formula for change now
The Concept
All who are concerned with the direction we're being taken as a nation need a simple yet powerful formula that will return the political decision-making process to We the People.
This will involve simply setting aside about 15-30 minutes per month to take a consistent action.
We will contact our legislators and targeted media list the week of the 11th of each month.
We pick this date to heighten awareness of the attacks of 9/11 and the neocon agenda which stated the need for a "New Pearl Harbor" in a document written by the neocon think tank "Project For A New American Century" titled "Rebuilding Our National Defenses".
For more background on the neocon agenda read these two excellent articles:
PNAC 101 - Rise of the Neocons
Possible Motives Of The Bush Administration - By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.3c.911truth.org/3c_concept.htm
The Action Plan
We need to urge our elected officials to take political action on the deception of 9/11. The process begins with informing them that we, as their constituents, desire truth, accountability and justice for the real crimes of 9/11. Additionally, they must know that we will support their actions if they heed our call, or withhold our support if they don't. Since nearly 250 Congressmen have signed a petition to allow a hearing on Able Danger, it's safe to assume that there is a growing awareness on the issues of 9/11 and willingness to act. Our monthly campaign described below will further this process.
Also, a variety of issues related to 9/11 has been visible in recent news coverage ranging from the Muslim FDNY Chaplain to Professor Steven Jones. This is gradually broadening public awareness and raising serious doubts on the official account of 9/11. Therefore, now is the perfect time to participate in democracy by taking the following 3 steps --
http://3c.911truth.org/3c_action.htm
Not a "sock puppet"; just an observation... Ask any mental health professional!
"It rubs the lotions on its skin, or it gets the hose again." Red Dragon (another sociopath)
"It rubs the lotions on its skin, or it gets the hose again." Red Dragon (another sociopath)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 13 2006, 06:52 AM)
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 13 2006, 06:23 AM)
That's amazing. It seems pretty obvious to me that the collapse had to be initiated at the core columns. I don't see how this wasn't the focus of their study.
(guest was me I forgot to log in)
Actually Cosmos, The new revised NIST theory IS that the collapse WAS initiated at the core columns.
We are just having fun with these obfuscating dinosaurs who haven't caught up to the new theory they are supposed to be supporting that the initiation of collapse began at the core.
It's a 'private' joke that we keep feeding Schneibster's choir with the pretend situation that there is some plausibility to the already discredited 'pancaking floors' theory.
They like to quote NIST, without having any understanding that the latest NIST postulation is that the collapse was initiated by Amazing Hiding Fires weakening the core columns, and that it was actually core columns that succumbed to initiate the collapse.
Still, NIST holds out the olive branch to the pancakers that 'also' (in some slight way the 'pancaking floors' is still somehow 'contributory'... truss seat failures etc.)...
but even NIST has now accepted that the initiation of collapse was due to core-column failures... (caused by Amazing Imaginary Hiding Fires), aligning themselves with the Weidlinger theory moreso than the Idiot Eagar Theory (popularized by NOVA... and still promoted by those with only a cursory examination of the NIST documents... or 'pretenders').
Actually, Foxx, as usual can't get his facts straight.
Quoting from the FINAL NIST report:
Section 8.3.5
The Core columns were weakened significantly by aircraft impact damage and thermal effects. Thermal effects dominated in WTC 1.
The primary role of the floors was to provide inward pulling forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. There would have been no inward pull forces if the floor connections had failed and disconnected.
Column buckling over an extended region of the perimeter face ultimately triggered the global system collapse as the loads could not be redistributed through the hat truss to the already weakened core.
Arthur
(guest was me I forgot to log in)
Actually Cosmos, The new revised NIST theory IS that the collapse WAS initiated at the core columns.
We are just having fun with these obfuscating dinosaurs who haven't caught up to the new theory they are supposed to be supporting that the initiation of collapse began at the core.
It's a 'private' joke that we keep feeding Schneibster's choir with the pretend situation that there is some plausibility to the already discredited 'pancaking floors' theory.
They like to quote NIST, without having any understanding that the latest NIST postulation is that the collapse was initiated by Amazing Hiding Fires weakening the core columns, and that it was actually core columns that succumbed to initiate the collapse.
Still, NIST holds out the olive branch to the pancakers that 'also' (in some slight way the 'pancaking floors' is still somehow 'contributory'... truss seat failures etc.)...
but even NIST has now accepted that the initiation of collapse was due to core-column failures... (caused by Amazing Imaginary Hiding Fires), aligning themselves with the Weidlinger theory moreso than the Idiot Eagar Theory (popularized by NOVA... and still promoted by those with only a cursory examination of the NIST documents... or 'pretenders').
Actually, Foxx, as usual can't get his facts straight.
Quoting from the FINAL NIST report:
Section 8.3.5
The Core columns were weakened significantly by aircraft impact damage and thermal effects. Thermal effects dominated in WTC 1.
The primary role of the floors was to provide inward pulling forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. There would have been no inward pull forces if the floor connections had failed and disconnected.
Column buckling over an extended region of the perimeter face ultimately triggered the global system collapse as the loads could not be redistributed through the hat truss to the already weakened core.
Arthur
Dynamic American whistleblowers -
SPECIAL SECTION:
Redefining National Security
Hanging Together
By Chris Strohm
cstrohm@govexec.com
Whistleblowers hook up and use technology to protect themselves and amplify their effect.
As national security is redefined, so are those who voice concern about it from within government. Whistleblowers in this arena no longer are lonely voices sacrificing their careers when they object to policy and operations. Today, they and their advocates have become an organized bloc, often using the Internet and the mainstream media to level charges while remaining anonymous and hoping to treble their impact and reach.
The nascent National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, for example, could be the harbinger of a stronger form of internal dissent that better protects individuals and could have a far greater effect on national security policy than did whistleblowers in the past. --
Full article - http://www.govexec.com/features/0106-01/01...1securityS4.htm
SPECIAL SECTION:
Redefining National Security
Hanging Together
By Chris Strohm
cstrohm@govexec.com
Whistleblowers hook up and use technology to protect themselves and amplify their effect.
As national security is redefined, so are those who voice concern about it from within government. Whistleblowers in this arena no longer are lonely voices sacrificing their careers when they object to policy and operations. Today, they and their advocates have become an organized bloc, often using the Internet and the mainstream media to level charges while remaining anonymous and hoping to treble their impact and reach.
The nascent National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, for example, could be the harbinger of a stronger form of internal dissent that better protects individuals and could have a far greater effect on national security policy than did whistleblowers in the past. --
Full article - http://www.govexec.com/features/0106-01/01...1securityS4.htm
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 13 2006, 03:24 PM)
Not a "sock puppet"; just an observation... Ask any mental health professional!
"It rubs the lotions on its skin, or it gets the hose again." Red Dragon (another sociopath)
What does a mental health professional say when a patient only sees what one person is doing while ignoring the same actions of another. Also what does a mental health professional say when the patient uses quotes from a sociopath to make a point? That ones frightening!
Lots of pseudo psychology in this board.
"It rubs the lotions on its skin, or it gets the hose again." Red Dragon (another sociopath)
What does a mental health professional say when a patient only sees what one person is doing while ignoring the same actions of another. Also what does a mental health professional say when the patient uses quotes from a sociopath to make a point? That ones frightening!
Lots of pseudo psychology in this board.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 13 2006, 03:41 PM)
Dynamic American whistleblowers -
SPECIAL SECTION:
Redefining National Security
Hanging Together
By Chris Strohm
cstrohm@govexec.com
Whistleblowers hook up and use technology to protect themselves and amplify their effect.
As national security is redefined, so are those who voice concern about it from within government. Whistleblowers in this arena no longer are lonely voices sacrificing their careers when they object to policy and operations. Today, they and their advocates have become an organized bloc, often using the Internet and the mainstream media to level charges while remaining anonymous and hoping to treble their impact and reach.
The nascent National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, for example, could be the harbinger of a stronger form of internal dissent that better protects individuals and could have a far greater effect on national security policy than did whistleblowers in the past. --
Full article - http://www.govexec.com/features/0106-01/01...1securityS4.htm
SPECIAL SECTION:
Redefining National Security
Hanging Together
By Chris Strohm
cstrohm@govexec.com
Whistleblowers hook up and use technology to protect themselves and amplify their effect.
As national security is redefined, so are those who voice concern about it from within government. Whistleblowers in this arena no longer are lonely voices sacrificing their careers when they object to policy and operations. Today, they and their advocates have become an organized bloc, often using the Internet and the mainstream media to level charges while remaining anonymous and hoping to treble their impact and reach.
The nascent National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, for example, could be the harbinger of a stronger form of internal dissent that better protects individuals and could have a far greater effect on national security policy than did whistleblowers in the past. --
Full article - http://www.govexec.com/features/0106-01/01...1securityS4.htm
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 03:59 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 13 2006, 03:24 PM)
Not a "sock puppet"; just an observation... Ask any mental health professional!
"It rubs the lotions on its skin, or it gets the hose again." Red Dragon (another sociopath)
What does a mental health professional say when a patient only sees what one person is doing while ignoring the same actions of another. Also what does a mental health professional say when the patient uses quotes from a sociopath to make a point? That ones frightening!
Lots of pseudo psychology in this board.
Good question. What does your Mental Health Professional say Common Sense?
"It rubs the lotions on its skin, or it gets the hose again." Red Dragon (another sociopath)
What does a mental health professional say when a patient only sees what one person is doing while ignoring the same actions of another. Also what does a mental health professional say when the patient uses quotes from a sociopath to make a point? That ones frightening!
Lots of pseudo psychology in this board.
Good question. What does your Mental Health Professional say Common Sense?
This is a great picture, since it does a pretty good job, all by itself of debunking the BS that Foxx has been spewing.
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc14.JPG
Go to the site so you can see it high res.
Put a straight edge against the WTC 2 tower. Notice it ain't straight, but it isn't falling yet either.
Notice the fires on the West and South side of the WTC 1 tower, notice that they are certainly fully involved, and clearly heating the South Side Perimeter Columns and trusses.
Guess what that will do to the structure considering that much of the North Side support is now absent.
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc15.JPG
This one is the best one I've yet seen that shows the relationship of FREE FALL to building collapse. It also shows pretty clearly that the bottom of the towers are still in fine shape. So much for the "it began in the bottom theory".
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc17.JPG
Now for the next series go to this guy's site and see from this picture
to at least this picture
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc22.JPG
These took place (based on the recollection of the photographer) over at least 1/2 minute or more.
What THESE clearly show is there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow. The smoke cloud does not rise above the initial levels. The only "hot" spot is at Ground Zero. The rest of the smoke/debris cloud just fills the canyons of NYC. Further, if the AVERAGE temp was even 1/2 of what Hoffman postulates than anyone in those apartments by the water would have been killed and the apartments themselves would all be in flames. Remember, being engulfed in a Pyroclastic Flow of but 100 d Centigrade would be fatal. Hoffman suggests the average temp was 10 times that. He dilutes it with external air, but since he is claiming the material making up the pyroclastic flow is MUCH MORE MASSIVE than the air, the average temps would still be in the multi hundred degree Cent. range. Fatal to pretty much any living thing.
Clearly not what is going on.
Arthur
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc14.JPG
Go to the site so you can see it high res.
Put a straight edge against the WTC 2 tower. Notice it ain't straight, but it isn't falling yet either.
Notice the fires on the West and South side of the WTC 1 tower, notice that they are certainly fully involved, and clearly heating the South Side Perimeter Columns and trusses.
Guess what that will do to the structure considering that much of the North Side support is now absent.
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc15.JPG
This one is the best one I've yet seen that shows the relationship of FREE FALL to building collapse. It also shows pretty clearly that the bottom of the towers are still in fine shape. So much for the "it began in the bottom theory".
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc17.JPG
Now for the next series go to this guy's site and see from this picture
to at least this picture
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc22.JPG
These took place (based on the recollection of the photographer) over at least 1/2 minute or more.
What THESE clearly show is there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow. The smoke cloud does not rise above the initial levels. The only "hot" spot is at Ground Zero. The rest of the smoke/debris cloud just fills the canyons of NYC. Further, if the AVERAGE temp was even 1/2 of what Hoffman postulates than anyone in those apartments by the water would have been killed and the apartments themselves would all be in flames. Remember, being engulfed in a Pyroclastic Flow of but 100 d Centigrade would be fatal. Hoffman suggests the average temp was 10 times that. He dilutes it with external air, but since he is claiming the material making up the pyroclastic flow is MUCH MORE MASSIVE than the air, the average temps would still be in the multi hundred degree Cent. range. Fatal to pretty much any living thing.
Clearly not what is going on.
Arthur
You can listen to Hoffman at the audio link below -
Building A Better Mirage: NIST's Cover-Up Of The Crime Of The Century (911)
http://gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=112
Building A Better Mirage: NIST's Cover-Up Of The Crime Of The Century (911)
http://gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=112
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 13 2006, 03:01 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 06:42 AM)
The problem that you have is called "sociopathology." What it stems from is an inability to comprehend that other people are REAL PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU.
Odd quote for someone who tries to de-humanize their opponents by calling them them "it"...
No, you don't get it. That's not for opponents.
Odd quote for someone who tries to de-humanize their opponents by calling them them "it"...
No, you don't get it. That's not for opponents.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 04:09 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 03:59 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 13 2006, 03:24 PM)
Not a "sock puppet"; just an observation... Ask any mental health professional!
"It rubs the lotions on its skin, or it gets the hose again." Red Dragon (another sociopath)
What does a mental health professional say when a patient only sees what one person is doing while ignoring the same actions of another. Also what does a mental health professional say when the patient uses quotes from a sociopath to make a point? That ones frightening!
Lots of pseudo psychology in this board.
Good question. What does your Mental Health Professional say Common Sense?
That reasonwhy is a clinical moron.. OOPS! I forgot about doctor - patient privacy.
"It rubs the lotions on its skin, or it gets the hose again." Red Dragon (another sociopath)
What does a mental health professional say when a patient only sees what one person is doing while ignoring the same actions of another. Also what does a mental health professional say when the patient uses quotes from a sociopath to make a point? That ones frightening!
Lots of pseudo psychology in this board.
Good question. What does your Mental Health Professional say Common Sense?
That reasonwhy is a clinical moron.. OOPS! I forgot about doctor - patient privacy.
Hi Arthur, I spent 20 minutes on it, and I can't see the bending of the south tower. Are you certain your monitor is properly adjusted for trapezoid, pincusion, and barrel distortion? I use a 21-inch Hitachi SuperScan Elite 802Plus. I was careful to check its adjustments before viewing the pictures. Did I just not blow them up enough? I can do that if that's what you think it is...
Hey temp, the spirefinish video won't download.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 06:23 PM)
Hi Arthur, I spent 20 minutes on it, and I can't see the bending of the south tower. Are you certain your monitor is properly adjusted for trapezoid, pincusion, and barrel distortion? I use a 21-inch Hitachi SuperScan Elite 802Plus. I was careful to check its adjustments before viewing the pictures. Did I just not blow them up enough? I can do that if that's what you think it is...
I think so.
I've got an LCD monitor and all the other lines are straight but the left side of the Right most tower.
I put the straightedge on the LEFT SIDE, but OUTSIDE OF THE TOWER.
I line it up with the bottom inch or so of the Tower.
A bit over an eigth or so up from the bottom of the picture the tower kinks very slightly to the right.
Arthur
I think so.
I've got an LCD monitor and all the other lines are straight but the left side of the Right most tower.
I put the straightedge on the LEFT SIDE, but OUTSIDE OF THE TOWER.
I line it up with the bottom inch or so of the Tower.
A bit over an eigth or so up from the bottom of the picture the tower kinks very slightly to the right.
Arthur
earlier someone mentioned angular momentum.
maybe it was my sock puppet, schniebster or common sense(i like to control both sides of a debate, thank hegel).
well, the cap with the antenna can be seen rotating outward, and then it just stops and starts dropping straight down. so, what happened to the pivot?
that's one.
the still standing core of the second tower collapse, as seen in the 911eyewitness video, shows a similiar effect, the core first begins to TIP, and then PLUMMETS straight down.
so much for everything happening from top down.
i wonder though, how when a 'shill' finds fault with the nist report, why not attack THEIR lie with 'us'. because, the government's complicity must be covered at all costs?
if nist couldn't get it right with all their high-falootin' microchips and grey matter and BIG GREEN, why are THEY not the primary target of ridicule and scorn?
why do supporters of gravity driven collapse ignore EACH OTHER'S inconsistencies?
pancake? plastic deformation of core? hat truss responsible for anything at all(were there not actually three hat trusses per tower, for the record? located at the levels of the mecahnical floors?)
now, while i understand the concepts behind load redistribution and the towers' construction well enough to 'see' what is being said, it is ALL nearly PURE SPECULATION put forward as FACT.
and this is where the most important thing is....
the 'answers', ALL of them from either camp, are unsatisfactory and incomplete. there is no good reason for this, except government complicity in a cover-up. there is absolutely no reason to hide evidence from the public. that ALONE is a STRONG INDICATOR of A BIG FAT LIE, and the NEED for a PARALLEL SERIES of INVESTIGATIONS(built in peer review. this was a CRIME. 'witnesses' should be 'interviewed' without knowledge of each other's observations.)
removing the evidence was a crime, too. if i was a cop in NY, i'd have arrested the mayor, or whoever ordered evidence be hidden and/or destroyed.
the 'questions' and 'assumptions' of the NIST report are fatally flawed, in that they are trying to fit data to thier assumptions. in fact, they ADMIT fudging the inputs of their simulations until a desired output is reached.
maybe it was my sock puppet, schniebster or common sense(i like to control both sides of a debate, thank hegel).
well, the cap with the antenna can be seen rotating outward, and then it just stops and starts dropping straight down. so, what happened to the pivot?
that's one.
the still standing core of the second tower collapse, as seen in the 911eyewitness video, shows a similiar effect, the core first begins to TIP, and then PLUMMETS straight down.
so much for everything happening from top down.
i wonder though, how when a 'shill' finds fault with the nist report, why not attack THEIR lie with 'us'. because, the government's complicity must be covered at all costs?
if nist couldn't get it right with all their high-falootin' microchips and grey matter and BIG GREEN, why are THEY not the primary target of ridicule and scorn?
why do supporters of gravity driven collapse ignore EACH OTHER'S inconsistencies?
pancake? plastic deformation of core? hat truss responsible for anything at all(were there not actually three hat trusses per tower, for the record? located at the levels of the mecahnical floors?)
now, while i understand the concepts behind load redistribution and the towers' construction well enough to 'see' what is being said, it is ALL nearly PURE SPECULATION put forward as FACT.
and this is where the most important thing is....
the 'answers', ALL of them from either camp, are unsatisfactory and incomplete. there is no good reason for this, except government complicity in a cover-up. there is absolutely no reason to hide evidence from the public. that ALONE is a STRONG INDICATOR of A BIG FAT LIE, and the NEED for a PARALLEL SERIES of INVESTIGATIONS(built in peer review. this was a CRIME. 'witnesses' should be 'interviewed' without knowledge of each other's observations.)
removing the evidence was a crime, too. if i was a cop in NY, i'd have arrested the mayor, or whoever ordered evidence be hidden and/or destroyed.
the 'questions' and 'assumptions' of the NIST report are fatally flawed, in that they are trying to fit data to thier assumptions. in fact, they ADMIT fudging the inputs of their simulations until a desired output is reached.
So much for the bottom up theory...
Unless testical brains (Yeah you nutjob) can explain how an explosion in the bottom of the core can blow the building down from the top and leave the core standing longer than the rest of the building...
Unless testical brains (Yeah you nutjob) can explain how an explosion in the bottom of the core can blow the building down from the top and leave the core standing longer than the rest of the building...
QUOTE (newton+)
earlier someone mentioned angular momentum.
Yes, but unfortunately it was in the context of the floor trusses, not in the context of the top of the building.
QUOTE (newton+)
well, the cap with the antenna can be seen rotating outward, and then it just stops and starts dropping straight down. so, what happened to the pivot?
I have seen this claim before, and have blown the picture up so large that it more than fills the screen (I run a two-headed system, so I can do this), and I have never been able to see more than a very slight rotation of the antenna. I'll point out that if the pivot was the core bending, this is not inconsistent with my scenario, and I'll further point out that once the core columns begin to buckle and to be destroyed by the descending elevator lobby slabs (which have to have been there- otherwise, what did people walk on in the elevator lobby?) and transverse beams linking the core columns together (documented elsewhere, I'll find a link if you're a lousy researcher, or perhaps someone else will pick up the slack), there would no longer be a pivot point. The falling top section would act as a battering ram, and be destroyed from the bottom up as it destroyed the rest of the building from the top down, until it disintegrated, and by that time, there was more than sufficient other debris to keep the collapse going by momentum.
QUOTE (newton+)
the still standing core of the second tower collapse, as seen in the 911eyewitness video, shows a similiar effect, the core first begins to TIP, and then PLUMMETS straight down.
Looks like pretty much the same thing to me, but with a bigger "battering ram" than in the North tower (I assume you mean the second tower HIT, not the second tower to COLLAPSE, since you mentioned an antenna above, and that was on the NORTH tower, which was the FIRST hit but the SECOND to collapse). Unless, of course, you're confused.
QUOTE (newton+)
so much for everything happening from top down.
Who claimed this, and where?
QUOTE (newton+)
i wonder though, how when a 'shill' finds fault with the nist report, why not attack THEIR lie with 'us'. because, the government's complicity must be covered at all costs?
if nist couldn't get it right with all their high-falootin' microchips and grey matter and BIG GREEN, why are THEY not the primary target of ridicule and scorn?
why do supporters of gravity driven collapse ignore EACH OTHER'S inconsistencies?
pancake? plastic deformation of core? hat truss responsible for anything at all(were there not actually three hat trusses per tower, for the record? located at the levels of the mecahnical floors?)
now, while i understand the concepts behind load redistribution and the towers' construction well enough to 'see' what is being said, it is ALL nearly PURE SPECULATION put forward as FACT.
if nist couldn't get it right with all their high-falootin' microchips and grey matter and BIG GREEN, why are THEY not the primary target of ridicule and scorn?
why do supporters of gravity driven collapse ignore EACH OTHER'S inconsistencies?
pancake? plastic deformation of core? hat truss responsible for anything at all(were there not actually three hat trusses per tower, for the record? located at the levels of the mecahnical floors?)
now, while i understand the concepts behind load redistribution and the towers' construction well enough to 'see' what is being said, it is ALL nearly PURE SPECULATION put forward as FACT.
Who ever said it's fact? Even NIST didn't have the gall to claim this. FEMA did; but they're lightweights anyway, as witness their "estimate" of the potential energy of the towers. Not to mention Katrina.
You've missed an important point. That point is, CTs like yourself claim that there are facts that cannot be explained by any theory but CD; to disprove this, it is not necessary to PROVE what happened, but merely to show that a PLAUSIBLE theory exists that EXPLAINS those facts without CD; and only those facts that can be actually verified (among numerous claims that have turned out to be lies or misrepresentations, the majority of which have emanated from either a single source or from several sources later shown to be actual shills for sites that are out to make a buck off the credulous) need be addressed.
That process is now complete; there IS a plausible theory that explains these anomalies (at least those anomalies that can actually be verified to exist, as opposed to those that cannot). Thus, we see that CD, contrary to a large number of claims, is not NECESSARY to explain what happened. And that, newton, is called "meeting the burden of proof."
You've missed an important point. That point is, CTs like yourself claim that there are facts that cannot be explained by any theory but CD; to disprove this, it is not necessary to PROVE what happened, but merely to show that a PLAUSIBLE theory exists that EXPLAINS those facts without CD; and only those facts that can be actually verified (among numerous claims that have turned out to be lies or misrepresentations, the majority of which have emanated from either a single source or from several sources later shown to be actual shills for sites that are out to make a buck off the credulous) need be addressed.
That process is now complete; there IS a plausible theory that explains these anomalies (at least those anomalies that can actually be verified to exist, as opposed to those that cannot). Thus, we see that CD, contrary to a large number of claims, is not NECESSARY to explain what happened. And that, newton, is called "meeting the burden of proof."
QUOTE (newton+)
the 'answers', ALL of them from either camp, are unsatisfactory and incomplete. there is no good reason for this, except government complicity in a cover-up. there is absolutely no reason to hide evidence from the public. that ALONE is a STRONG INDICATOR of A BIG FAT LIE, and the NEED for a PARALLEL SERIES of INVESTIGATIONS(built in peer review. this was a CRIME. 'witnesses' should be 'interviewed' without knowledge of each other's observations.)
I will point out that if, as I have stated on more than one occasion, a Turd-Blossom-style smokescreen is to be erected by posing ridiculous hypotheses so that the NON-ridiculous ones can be discredited along with the ridiculous ones, would it not serve this purpose better to ensure that the evidence is equivocated than to reveal it all? And if that's the case, then what they're concealing need not be CD- merely complicity OF ANY KIND.
QUOTE (newton+)
the 'questions' and 'assumptions' of the NIST report are fatally flawed, in that they are trying to fit data to thier assumptions. in fact, they ADMIT fudging the inputs of their simulations until a desired output is reached.
I'm not as sure about that as I was last night- observe my response to Common Sense on his post of this morning. I may have beat up on NIST for something they did not do.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 08:22 PM)
So much for the bottom up theory...
Unless testical brains (Yeah you nutjob) can explain how an explosion in the bottom of the core can blow the building down from the top and leave the core standing longer than the rest of the building...
Common Senseless and thereby useless , what does this prove? That all the theories are wrong and a real investigation is needed?
Unless testical brains (Yeah you nutjob) can explain how an explosion in the bottom of the core can blow the building down from the top and leave the core standing longer than the rest of the building...
Common Senseless and thereby useless , what does this prove? That all the theories are wrong and a real investigation is needed?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 13 2006, 07:04 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 06:23 PM)
Hi Arthur, I spent 20 minutes on it, and I can't see the bending of the south tower. Are you certain your monitor is properly adjusted for trapezoid, pincusion, and barrel distortion? I use a 21-inch Hitachi SuperScan Elite 802Plus. I was careful to check its adjustments before viewing the pictures. Did I just not blow them up enough? I can do that if that's what you think it is...
I think so.
I've got an LCD monitor and all the other lines are straight but the left side of the Right most tower.
I put the straightedge on the LEFT SIDE, but OUTSIDE OF THE TOWER.
I line it up with the bottom inch or so of the Tower.
A bit over an eigth or so up from the bottom of the picture the tower kinks very slightly to the right.
Arthur
OK, Arthur, you're right. I didn't blow it up enough, just went with the native resolution of the picture. I put my ruler in the middle, and found daylight at both ends; if I rotated the ruler to eliminate the daylight at one end, it appeared at the other. And I tried it at several locations across the screen to eliminate the possibility that it could be monitor distortion. I see the building is not straight, and a building like that can't stand long if it's not. And as it turns out, that was the start of the collapse. according to the web page.
Anyone wishing to duplicate my results should download and zoom in on wtc14.jpg.
That process is now complete; there IS a plausible theory that explains these anomalies (at least those anomalies that can actually be verified to exist, as opposed to those that cannot). Thus, we see that CD, contrary to a large number of claims, is not NECESSARY to explain what happened. And that, newton, is called "meeting the burden of proof."
What is the theory that meets the burden of proof?
I think so.
I've got an LCD monitor and all the other lines are straight but the left side of the Right most tower.
I put the straightedge on the LEFT SIDE, but OUTSIDE OF THE TOWER.
I line it up with the bottom inch or so of the Tower.
A bit over an eigth or so up from the bottom of the picture the tower kinks very slightly to the right.
Arthur
OK, Arthur, you're right. I didn't blow it up enough, just went with the native resolution of the picture. I put my ruler in the middle, and found daylight at both ends; if I rotated the ruler to eliminate the daylight at one end, it appeared at the other. And I tried it at several locations across the screen to eliminate the possibility that it could be monitor distortion. I see the building is not straight, and a building like that can't stand long if it's not. And as it turns out, that was the start of the collapse. according to the web page.
Anyone wishing to duplicate my results should download and zoom in on wtc14.jpg.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 08:28 PM)
That process is now complete; there IS a plausible theory that explains these anomalies (at least those anomalies that can actually be verified to exist, as opposed to those that cannot). Thus, we see that CD, contrary to a large number of claims, is not NECESSARY to explain what happened. And that, newton, is called "meeting the burden of proof."
What is the theory that meets the burden of proof?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 08:33 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 08:22 PM)
So much for the bottom up theory...
Unless testical brains (Yeah you nutjob) can explain how an explosion in the bottom of the core can blow the building down from the top and leave the core standing longer than the rest of the building...
Common Senseless and thereby useless , what does this prove? That all the theories are wrong and a real investigation is needed?
It only proves your a moron for believing the core was blown up from the bottom first since IT'S STILL STANDING IN THIS PHOTO. Heh!
And what do you know... Heres more proof your a moron since the OTHER CORE IS ALSO STANDING IN THIS PHOTO..
That process is now complete; there IS a plausible theory that explains these anomalies (at least those anomalies that can actually be verified to exist, as opposed to those that cannot). Thus, we see that CD, contrary to a large number of claims, is not NECESSARY to explain what happened. And that, newton, is called "meeting the burden of proof."
What is the theory that meets the burden of proof?
Why would it matter? You'll only believe the proof which meets your theory.
That process is now complete; there IS a plausible theory that explains these anomalies (at least those anomalies that can actually be verified to exist, as opposed to those that cannot). Thus, we see that CD, contrary to a large number of claims, is not NECESSARY to explain what happened. And that, newton, is called "meeting the burden of proof."
What is the theory that meets the burden of proof?
Having a little reading comprehension trouble, there, sport? Or is that <snif snif> cognitive dissonance I smell? Frying neurons, perhaps? What's next, more insults? How about some more imputations that I have psychological problems. That seems to be your favorite tack.
If you're going to participate in the thread, it's, umm, you know, kind of important that you actually READ it. But of course, you did; you just didn't LIKE what you read, and you can't HANDLE it. Does it make you feel angry? Like I said, cognitive dissonance at its best.
Unless testical brains (Yeah you nutjob) can explain how an explosion in the bottom of the core can blow the building down from the top and leave the core standing longer than the rest of the building...
Common Senseless and thereby useless , what does this prove? That all the theories are wrong and a real investigation is needed?
It only proves your a moron for believing the core was blown up from the bottom first since IT'S STILL STANDING IN THIS PHOTO. Heh!
And what do you know... Heres more proof your a moron since the OTHER CORE IS ALSO STANDING IN THIS PHOTO..
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 08:53 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 08:28 PM)
That process is now complete; there IS a plausible theory that explains these anomalies (at least those anomalies that can actually be verified to exist, as opposed to those that cannot). Thus, we see that CD, contrary to a large number of claims, is not NECESSARY to explain what happened. And that, newton, is called "meeting the burden of proof."
What is the theory that meets the burden of proof?
Why would it matter? You'll only believe the proof which meets your theory.
OK, I had to do some screwing around, but I finally got the spire video.
There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide: it's conclusive, there was a spire of core columns taller than any building surrounding the site (I'm guessing it was more than 60 stories tall, measuring against 7 WTC in the forground) still standing when the rest of the building had already hit the ground.
The core columns didn't get destroyed 50 stories down the building, less than half, until after the entire rest of the building had fallen.
I think it is the unusual angle of the shot (from New Jersey, using a camera that had a pretty good zoom and nice optics) that allows us to see this. From other angles, this spire is hidden in the dust.
This is CONCLUSIVE evidence that the perimeter and floors fell down well before the core failed entirely. It's also conclusive evidence of the "pancake" theory: the floor truss connections to the core failed as the building fell.
Furthermore, it's clearly apparent that the top of the core (inside the falling section), the hat truss, and the other material inside that section had all disintegrated by the time the collapse had reached the 60th floor.
No more bulls**t about "evaporating columns," please. There they are, in living color, sixty stories tall when the rest of the building is rubble lying on the ground. No more "pancake" comments, either; it's obvious that that's precisely what happened, at least from the sixtieth story down.
There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide: it's conclusive, there was a spire of core columns taller than any building surrounding the site (I'm guessing it was more than 60 stories tall, measuring against 7 WTC in the forground) still standing when the rest of the building had already hit the ground.
The core columns didn't get destroyed 50 stories down the building, less than half, until after the entire rest of the building had fallen.
I think it is the unusual angle of the shot (from New Jersey, using a camera that had a pretty good zoom and nice optics) that allows us to see this. From other angles, this spire is hidden in the dust.
This is CONCLUSIVE evidence that the perimeter and floors fell down well before the core failed entirely. It's also conclusive evidence of the "pancake" theory: the floor truss connections to the core failed as the building fell.
Furthermore, it's clearly apparent that the top of the core (inside the falling section), the hat truss, and the other material inside that section had all disintegrated by the time the collapse had reached the 60th floor.
No more bulls**t about "evaporating columns," please. There they are, in living color, sixty stories tall when the rest of the building is rubble lying on the ground. No more "pancake" comments, either; it's obvious that that's precisely what happened, at least from the sixtieth story down.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 08:53 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 08:28 PM)
That process is now complete; there IS a plausible theory that explains these anomalies (at least those anomalies that can actually be verified to exist, as opposed to those that cannot). Thus, we see that CD, contrary to a large number of claims, is not NECESSARY to explain what happened. And that, newton, is called "meeting the burden of proof."
What is the theory that meets the burden of proof?
Having a little reading comprehension trouble, there, sport? Or is that <snif snif> cognitive dissonance I smell? Frying neurons, perhaps? What's next, more insults? How about some more imputations that I have psychological problems. That seems to be your favorite tack.
If you're going to participate in the thread, it's, umm, you know, kind of important that you actually READ it. But of course, you did; you just didn't LIKE what you read, and you can't HANDLE it. Does it make you feel angry? Like I said, cognitive dissonance at its best.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 09:05 PM)
OK, I had to do some screwing around, but I finally got the spire video.
There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide: it's conclusive, there was a spire of core columns taller than any building surrounding the site (I'm guessing it was more than 60 stories tall, measuring against 7 WTC in the forground) still standing when the rest of the building had already hit the ground.
The core columns didn't get destroyed 50 stories down the building, less than half, until after the entire rest of the building had fallen.
I think it is the unusual angle of the shot (from New Jersey, using a camera that had a pretty good zoom and nice optics) that allows us to see this. From other angles, this spire is hidden in the dust.
This is CONCLUSIVE evidence that the perimeter and floors fell down well before the core failed entirely. It's also conclusive evidence of the "pancake" theory: the floor truss connections to the core failed as the building fell.
Furthermore, it's clearly apparent that the top of the core (inside the falling section), the hat truss, and the other material inside that section had all disintegrated by the time the collapse had reached the 60th floor.
No more bulls**t about "evaporating columns," please. There they are, in living color, sixty stories tall when the rest of the building is rubble lying on the ground. No more "pancake" comments, either; it's obvious that that's precisely what happened, at least from the sixtieth story down.
I would add it's also conclusive evidence that a bomb didn't go off in the basement causing the top floors to collapse. It's also conclusive evidence the red hot steel in one of the CT pictures is NOT caused by explosives in the core. Because if it were why is the core standing? Shouldn't steel at 1000 degrees bend like an uncooked pretzel under the tremendous weight? of a 110 story office building? The core should have fallen faster than the perimeter.
Common Sense tags Schneibster hand "Your turn."
There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide: it's conclusive, there was a spire of core columns taller than any building surrounding the site (I'm guessing it was more than 60 stories tall, measuring against 7 WTC in the forground) still standing when the rest of the building had already hit the ground.
The core columns didn't get destroyed 50 stories down the building, less than half, until after the entire rest of the building had fallen.
I think it is the unusual angle of the shot (from New Jersey, using a camera that had a pretty good zoom and nice optics) that allows us to see this. From other angles, this spire is hidden in the dust.
This is CONCLUSIVE evidence that the perimeter and floors fell down well before the core failed entirely. It's also conclusive evidence of the "pancake" theory: the floor truss connections to the core failed as the building fell.
Furthermore, it's clearly apparent that the top of the core (inside the falling section), the hat truss, and the other material inside that section had all disintegrated by the time the collapse had reached the 60th floor.
No more bulls**t about "evaporating columns," please. There they are, in living color, sixty stories tall when the rest of the building is rubble lying on the ground. No more "pancake" comments, either; it's obvious that that's precisely what happened, at least from the sixtieth story down.
I would add it's also conclusive evidence that a bomb didn't go off in the basement causing the top floors to collapse. It's also conclusive evidence the red hot steel in one of the CT pictures is NOT caused by explosives in the core. Because if it were why is the core standing? Shouldn't steel at 1000 degrees bend like an uncooked pretzel under the tremendous weight? of a 110 story office building? The core should have fallen faster than the perimeter.
Common Sense tags Schneibster hand "Your turn."
does anyone have any ideas on how to prove that inertia = MR^2? please help!
One more thing to notice: since the core was not demolished, it looks like "controlled demolition" is right out, since CD techniques induce collapse by removing the columns that support a building and letting its weight destroy it. Looking at the videos, it's obvious that the collapses started where the planes hit. So I got a question:
How did the evul gummint demolition conspirists (yes, I've actually seen some idiot spell it that way) know which floors to put the charges on???
Tag- you're it.
How did the evul gummint demolition conspirists (yes, I've actually seen some idiot spell it that way) know which floors to put the charges on???
Tag- you're it.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 13 2006, 05:41 PM)
You can listen to Hoffman at the audio link below -
Building A Better Mirage: NIST's Cover-Up Of The Crime Of The Century (911)
http://gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=112
Good post Brian. Hoffman explains the NIST report much better then official theory supporters.
Building A Better Mirage: NIST's Cover-Up Of The Crime Of The Century (911)
http://gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=112
Good post Brian. Hoffman explains the NIST report much better then official theory supporters.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 09:53 PM)
One more thing to notice: since the core was not demolished, it looks like "controlled demolition" is right out, since CD techniques induce collapse by removing the columns that support a building and letting its weight destroy it. Looking at the videos, it's obvious that the collapses started where the planes hit. So I got a question:
How did the evul gummint demolition conspirists (yes, I've actually seen some idiot spell it that way) know which floors to put the charges on???
Tag- you're it.
Did I mention you're a genius?
How did the evul gummint demolition conspirists (yes, I've actually seen some idiot spell it that way) know which floors to put the charges on???
Tag- you're it.
Did I mention you're a genius?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 10:08 PM)
Good post Brian. Hoffman explains the NIST report much better then official theory supporters.
Yeah, just one little problem: how does he account for 60-story tall spires of unbroken core when the rest of the building is lying on the ground?
Yeah, just one little problem: how does he account for 60-story tall spires of unbroken core when the rest of the building is lying on the ground?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 10:08 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 13 2006, 05:41 PM)
You can listen to Hoffman at the audio link below -
Building A Better Mirage: NIST's Cover-Up Of The Crime Of The Century (911)
http://gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=112
Good post Brian. Hoffman explains the NIST report much better then official theory supporters.
Is the transcript available? You should post it so using Straight edges on Computer Monitors are not necessary to speculate about theories.
Building A Better Mirage: NIST's Cover-Up Of The Crime Of The Century (911)
http://gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=112
Good post Brian. Hoffman explains the NIST report much better then official theory supporters.
Is the transcript available? You should post it so using Straight edges on Computer Monitors are not necessary to speculate about theories.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 10:22 PM)
Is the transcript available? You should post it so using Straight edges on Computer Monitors are not necessary to speculate about theories.
Yeah, ignore all those pictures and videos showing spires, there were no spires, there were no spires, there were no spires.
Yeah, ignore all those pictures and videos showing spires, there were no spires, there were no spires, there were no spires.
Who is involved in the largest mass murder and cover-up conspiracy in the world? If you ask these conspiracy nuts it’s all these people because none want an investigation…
Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of you. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about a gag rule imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag rule on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. They are lying to cover up this mass murder for either Bush or the building owner. Why? They don't even know...
-The courts for imposing a gag rule [SEE above] Why? It doesn't matter to them...
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...
-All the people in the pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly truck in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? again, no answer...
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: whenever killing someone pay off the relative. They wont say anything.]
-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like like the BBC and Al Jeezera. Why? No answer here either...
-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent org doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy"
-EVERY STRUCTUAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? No answer...
-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why" No clue...
-The CIA who is in controlling the left wing media.
-Anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes. These CT sites can't be created by Rove according to them. They can't be trying to "Posin the well" so Bush can get away with real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involve, the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers yet we are to believe not ONE has the morals to talk...
Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of you. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about a gag rule imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag rule on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. They are lying to cover up this mass murder for either Bush or the building owner. Why? They don't even know...
-The courts for imposing a gag rule [SEE above] Why? It doesn't matter to them...
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...
-All the people in the pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly truck in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? again, no answer...
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: whenever killing someone pay off the relative. They wont say anything.]
-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like like the BBC and Al Jeezera. Why? No answer here either...
-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent org doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy"
-EVERY STRUCTUAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? No answer...
-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why" No clue...
-The CIA who is in controlling the left wing media.
-Anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes. These CT sites can't be created by Rove according to them. They can't be trying to "Posin the well" so Bush can get away with real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involve, the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers yet we are to believe not ONE has the morals to talk...
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 10:16 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 09:53 PM)
One more thing to notice: since the core was not demolished, it looks like "controlled demolition" is right out, since CD techniques induce collapse by removing the columns that support a building and letting its weight destroy it. Looking at the videos, it's obvious that the collapses started where the planes hit. So I got a question:
How did the evul gummint demolition conspirists (yes, I've actually seen some idiot spell it that way) know which floors to put the charges on???
Tag- you're it.
Did I mention you're a genius?
Heh, you're embarrassing me.
-Anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes. These CT sites can't be created by Rove according to them. They can't be trying to "Posin the well" so Bush can get away with real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers.
You seam to forget it is a conspiracy theory of 19 muslim extremist you are promoting. Most people are just looking for answers because the Official Conspiracy Theory is so ridicules.
-Anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes. These CT sites can't be created by Rove according to them. They can't be trying to "Posin the well" so Bush can get away with real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers.
You seam to forget it is a conspiracy theory of 19 museums extremist you are promoting. Most people are just looking for answers because the Official Conspiracy Theory is so ridicules.
Yeah, your comparing 19 Muslims willing to die for 72 virgins and a place at Gods right hand. 19 Muslims who's leader held back Russia and went to school for civil engineering with thousands of Americans willing to cover up a mass murder for BUSH of all people...
Which one sounds more ridiculous?
I can smell reasonwhy's synaptic nerve endings shorting out now..
Emphasis mine.
It was already pointed out to you that Hoffman does not assume uniform temperature. You claim that the only "hot" spot" is at ground zero but then assume that cooling away from ground zero would negate Hoffman. (I sort of believe the "hot spot" claim in that I certainly believe all heating occurred within the Towers' footprints. )
Maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn't. Hoffman's work needs to be elaborated via fluid hydrodynamics. Having said that, though, the notion that the mass of pulverized matter in the pyroclastic flows exceeding that of the gases "proves" a certain temperature is silly. You haven't proved anything, just waived your hands with a qualitative argument that probably distorts the issue.
A WTC pyroclastic flow, with all heating occuring at ground zero (or above), would start cooling the instant it started flowing away, just as the vapor leaving a tea kettle starts an immediate and rapid cooling. The powderized solids in the pyroclastic flow have a huge surface area to volume ratio. This guarantees that the powder not only heats up quickly, but cools off quickly.
Again, because the powder is so fine, it also has a very high surface area to weight ratio. Hence, the expanding pyroclastic flow will continue to push outward, with direct collisions between powder particles but also with the gas constituents of the flow carrying along the more distant, cooler particles.
Since the powder was so fine, it will not immediately settle out. It cannot.
As the boundary of the pyroclastic flow is relatively well defined (more like a cumulus cloud, rather than a cirrus cloud ( ) getting a reasonable estimate of volume is possible. Thus, if you assume the pyroclastic flow was essentially "cold" throughout, you have a huge problem in explaining the following:* Once the building stopped falling, what could possibly drive the flows other than a heat source at ground zero? Since the dust cloud is denser than ambient air, it should indeed expand, but at a slow rate as it settles out, via bulging out from the bottom. 40 mph is not slow and it's not settling out. Take another look at the video of the pyroclastic flow "choo choo train", and I defy any reasonable person to call that "settling out".
Please don't say "momentum" could keep the flow directed outwardly, since air resistance to both outwardly expanding gasses and powder is so great that this should disspipate the outward directed energy quickly.
The only reasonable way to explain a rapidly expanding and advancing "dust cloud", after the buildings had fallen, is to assume the creation of yet more of it, afterwards. (In other words, not just being "blown about" by air currents resulting directly from the falling matter of the towers.)
Indeed, Hoffman writes:
Emphasis mine.
It was already pointed out to you that Hoffman does not assume uniform temperature. You claim that the only "hot" spot" is at ground zero but then assume that cooling away from ground zero would negate Hoffman. (I sort of believe the "hot spot" claim in that I certainly believe all heating occurred within the Towers' footprints. )
Maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn't. Hoffman's work needs to be elaborated via fluid hydrodynamics. Having said that, though, the notion that the mass of pulverized matter in the pyroclastic flows exceeding that of the gases "proves" a certain temperature is silly. You haven't proved anything, just waived your hands with a qualitative argument that probably distorts the issue.
A WTC pyroclastic flow, with all heating occuring at ground zero (or above), would start cooling the instant it started flowing away, just as the vapor leaving a tea kettle starts an immediate and rapid cooling. The powderized solids in the pyroclastic flow have a huge surface area to volume ratio. This guarantees that the powder not only heats up quickly, but cools off quickly.
Again, because the powder is so fine, it also has a very high surface area to weight ratio. Hence, the expanding pyroclastic flow will continue to push outward, with direct collisions between powder particles but also with the gas constituents of the flow carrying along the more distant, cooler particles.
Since the powder was so fine, it will not immediately settle out. It cannot.
As the boundary of the pyroclastic flow is relatively well defined (more like a cumulus cloud, rather than a cirrus cloud ( ) getting a reasonable estimate of volume is possible. Thus, if you assume the pyroclastic flow was essentially "cold" throughout, you have a huge problem in explaining the following:* Once the building stopped falling, what could possibly drive the flows other than a heat source at ground zero? Since the dust cloud is denser than ambient air, it should indeed expand, but at a slow rate as it settles out, via bulging out from the bottom. 40 mph is not slow and it's not settling out. Take another look at the video of the pyroclastic flow "choo choo train", and I defy any reasonable person to call that "settling out".
Please don't say "momentum" could keep the flow directed outwardly, since air resistance to both outwardly expanding gasses and powder is so great that this should disspipate the outward directed energy quickly.
The only reasonable way to explain a rapidly expanding and advancing "dust cloud", after the buildings had fallen, is to assume the creation of yet more of it, afterwards. (In other words, not just being "blown about" by air currents resulting directly from the falling matter of the towers.)
Indeed, Hoffman writes:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html
Both towers exploded into vast dust clouds, which photographs show to be several times the volumes of the intact buildings by the time the destruction reached the ground. The dust clouds continued to expand rapidly thereafter, growing to easily five times the buildings' original volume by30 seconds after the initiation of each collapse.
You cannot negate Hoffman's results with such arguments as you have made. In fact, you cannot negate anybody's results by extrapolating conclusions that you can only hope are valid, and then negating those. This amounts to a straw man argument, with nothing substantial to back up your claims, other than your intuition. Maybe it's just me and Foxx, but I can't take the intuition of the propagator of the 'Amazing Bellows Theory' too seriously. Can you produce a simple quantitative argument that would convince us that a rapidly advancing dust, emanating from point A, is also not rapidly cooling off? I mean a scenario with well known physics formulas. Perhaps you can, but you certainly haven't.
Your only other real hope of negating this aspect (and perhaps others) of Hoffman's work is to show that a full treatment with hydrodynamical considerations might do so.
If I were you, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
* I mean, of course, in a plausible way. Propagators of Fairty Tales and even Amazing Bellows Theories will make up all kind of incredible scenarios at the drop of a hat.
-Anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes. These CT sites can't be created by Rove according to them. They can't be trying to "Posin the well" so Bush can get away with real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers.
You seam to forget it is a conspiracy theory of 19 muslim extremist you are promoting. Most people are just looking for answers because the Official Conspiracy Theory is so ridicules.
Sounds like you got a little confused there, sport. There is a question no amount of investigation into the falls of the towers can answer. It is the most important question of the entire business.
Why weren't hijacked planes shot down after the first impact?
How did the evul gummint demolition conspirists (yes, I've actually seen some idiot spell it that way) know which floors to put the charges on???
Tag- you're it.
Did I mention you're a genius?
Heh, you're embarrassing me.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 10:43 PM)
-Anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes. These CT sites can't be created by Rove according to them. They can't be trying to "Posin the well" so Bush can get away with real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers.
You seam to forget it is a conspiracy theory of 19 muslim extremist you are promoting. Most people are just looking for answers because the Official Conspiracy Theory is so ridicules.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 10:53 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 10:43 PM)
-Anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes. These CT sites can't be created by Rove according to them. They can't be trying to "Posin the well" so Bush can get away with real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers.
You seam to forget it is a conspiracy theory of 19 museums extremist you are promoting. Most people are just looking for answers because the Official Conspiracy Theory is so ridicules.
Yeah, your comparing 19 Muslims willing to die for 72 virgins and a place at Gods right hand. 19 Muslims who's leader held back Russia and went to school for civil engineering with thousands of Americans willing to cover up a mass murder for BUSH of all people...
Which one sounds more ridiculous?
I can smell reasonwhy's synaptic nerve endings shorting out now..
QUOTE
(Arthur)
What THESE clearly show is there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow. The smoke cloud does not rise above the initial levels. The only "hot" spot is at Ground Zero. The rest of the smoke/debris cloud just fills the canyons of NYC. Further, if the AVERAGE temp was even 1/2 of what Hoffman postulates than anyone in those apartments by the water would have been killed and the apartments themselves would all be in flames. Remember, being engulfed in a Pyroclastic Flow of but 100 d Centigrade would be fatal. Hoffman suggests the average temp was 10 times that. He dilutes it with external air, but since he is claiming the material making up the pyroclastic flow is MUCH MORE MASSIVE than the air, the average temps would still be in the multi hundred degree Cent. range. Fatal to pretty much any living thing.
Clearly not what is going on.
What THESE clearly show is there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow. The smoke cloud does not rise above the initial levels. The only "hot" spot is at Ground Zero. The rest of the smoke/debris cloud just fills the canyons of NYC. Further, if the AVERAGE temp was even 1/2 of what Hoffman postulates than anyone in those apartments by the water would have been killed and the apartments themselves would all be in flames. Remember, being engulfed in a Pyroclastic Flow of but 100 d Centigrade would be fatal. Hoffman suggests the average temp was 10 times that. He dilutes it with external air, but since he is claiming the material making up the pyroclastic flow is MUCH MORE MASSIVE than the air, the average temps would still be in the multi hundred degree Cent. range. Fatal to pretty much any living thing.
Clearly not what is going on.
Emphasis mine.
It was already pointed out to you that Hoffman does not assume uniform temperature. You claim that the only "hot" spot" is at ground zero but then assume that cooling away from ground zero would negate Hoffman. (I sort of believe the "hot spot" claim in that I certainly believe all heating occurred within the Towers' footprints. )
Maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn't. Hoffman's work needs to be elaborated via fluid hydrodynamics. Having said that, though, the notion that the mass of pulverized matter in the pyroclastic flows exceeding that of the gases "proves" a certain temperature is silly. You haven't proved anything, just waived your hands with a qualitative argument that probably distorts the issue.
A WTC pyroclastic flow, with all heating occuring at ground zero (or above), would start cooling the instant it started flowing away, just as the vapor leaving a tea kettle starts an immediate and rapid cooling. The powderized solids in the pyroclastic flow have a huge surface area to volume ratio. This guarantees that the powder not only heats up quickly, but cools off quickly.
Again, because the powder is so fine, it also has a very high surface area to weight ratio. Hence, the expanding pyroclastic flow will continue to push outward, with direct collisions between powder particles but also with the gas constituents of the flow carrying along the more distant, cooler particles.
Since the powder was so fine, it will not immediately settle out. It cannot.
As the boundary of the pyroclastic flow is relatively well defined (more like a cumulus cloud, rather than a cirrus cloud (
) getting a reasonable estimate of volume is possible. Thus, if you assume the pyroclastic flow was essentially "cold" throughout, you have a huge problem in explaining the following:* Once the building stopped falling, what could possibly drive the flows other than a heat source at ground zero? Since the dust cloud is denser than ambient air, it should indeed expand, but at a slow rate as it settles out, via bulging out from the bottom. 40 mph is not slow and it's not settling out. Take another look at the video of the pyroclastic flow "choo choo train", and I defy any reasonable person to call that "settling out".Please don't say "momentum" could keep the flow directed outwardly, since air resistance to both outwardly expanding gasses and powder is so great that this should disspipate the outward directed energy quickly.
The only reasonable way to explain a rapidly expanding and advancing "dust cloud", after the buildings had fallen, is to assume the creation of yet more of it, afterwards. (In other words, not just being "blown about" by air currents resulting directly from the falling matter of the towers.)
Indeed, Hoffman writes:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Arthur) What THESE clearly show is there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow. The smoke cloud does not rise above the initial levels. The only "hot" spot is at Ground Zero. The rest of the smoke/debris cloud just fills the canyons of NYC. Further, if the AVERAGE temp was even 1/2 of what Hoffman postulates than anyone in those apartments by the water would have been killed and the apartments themselves would all be in flames. Remember, being engulfed in a Pyroclastic Flow of but 100 d Centigrade would be fatal. Hoffman suggests the average temp was 10 times that. He dilutes it with external air, but since he is claiming the material making up the pyroclastic flow is MUCH MORE MASSIVE than the air, the average temps would still be in the multi hundred degree Cent. range. Fatal to pretty much any living thing. Clearly not what is going on. |
Emphasis mine.
It was already pointed out to you that Hoffman does not assume uniform temperature. You claim that the only "hot" spot" is at ground zero but then assume that cooling away from ground zero would negate Hoffman. (I sort of believe the "hot spot" claim in that I certainly believe all heating occurred within the Towers' footprints. )
Maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn't. Hoffman's work needs to be elaborated via fluid hydrodynamics. Having said that, though, the notion that the mass of pulverized matter in the pyroclastic flows exceeding that of the gases "proves" a certain temperature is silly. You haven't proved anything, just waived your hands with a qualitative argument that probably distorts the issue.
A WTC pyroclastic flow, with all heating occuring at ground zero (or above), would start cooling the instant it started flowing away, just as the vapor leaving a tea kettle starts an immediate and rapid cooling. The powderized solids in the pyroclastic flow have a huge surface area to volume ratio. This guarantees that the powder not only heats up quickly, but cools off quickly.
Again, because the powder is so fine, it also has a very high surface area to weight ratio. Hence, the expanding pyroclastic flow will continue to push outward, with direct collisions between powder particles but also with the gas constituents of the flow carrying along the more distant, cooler particles.
Since the powder was so fine, it will not immediately settle out. It cannot.
As the boundary of the pyroclastic flow is relatively well defined (more like a cumulus cloud, rather than a cirrus cloud (
) getting a reasonable estimate of volume is possible. Thus, if you assume the pyroclastic flow was essentially "cold" throughout, you have a huge problem in explaining the following:* Once the building stopped falling, what could possibly drive the flows other than a heat source at ground zero? Since the dust cloud is denser than ambient air, it should indeed expand, but at a slow rate as it settles out, via bulging out from the bottom. 40 mph is not slow and it's not settling out. Take another look at the video of the pyroclastic flow "choo choo train", and I defy any reasonable person to call that "settling out".Please don't say "momentum" could keep the flow directed outwardly, since air resistance to both outwardly expanding gasses and powder is so great that this should disspipate the outward directed energy quickly.
The only reasonable way to explain a rapidly expanding and advancing "dust cloud", after the buildings had fallen, is to assume the creation of yet more of it, afterwards. (In other words, not just being "blown about" by air currents resulting directly from the falling matter of the towers.)
Indeed, Hoffman writes:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html
Both towers exploded into vast dust clouds, which photographs show to be several times the volumes of the intact buildings by the time the destruction reached the ground. The dust clouds continued to expand rapidly thereafter, growing to easily five times the buildings' original volume by30 seconds after the initiation of each collapse.
You cannot negate Hoffman's results with such arguments as you have made. In fact, you cannot negate anybody's results by extrapolating conclusions that you can only hope are valid, and then negating those. This amounts to a straw man argument, with nothing substantial to back up your claims, other than your intuition. Maybe it's just me and Foxx, but I can't take the intuition of the propagator of the 'Amazing Bellows Theory' too seriously. Can you produce a simple quantitative argument that would convince us that a rapidly advancing dust, emanating from point A, is also not rapidly cooling off? I mean a scenario with well known physics formulas. Perhaps you can, but you certainly haven't.
Your only other real hope of negating this aspect (and perhaps others) of Hoffman's work is to show that a full treatment with hydrodynamical considerations might do so.
If I were you, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
* I mean, of course, in a plausible way. Propagators of Fairty Tales and even Amazing Bellows Theories will make up all kind of incredible scenarios at the drop of a hat.
common sense, you're the one with ridiculous lies.
The FDNY cried for an investigation. There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine, that called the 'investigation' a half baked farce, asking for an end to the removal of the evidence from the crime scene. To no effect, of course.
And, of course, it slipped by you.
The FDNY cried for an investigation. There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine, that called the 'investigation' a half baked farce, asking for an end to the removal of the evidence from the crime scene. To no effect, of course.
And, of course, it slipped by you.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 10:53 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 10:43 PM)
-Anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes. These CT sites can't be created by Rove according to them. They can't be trying to "Posin the well" so Bush can get away with real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers.
You seam to forget it is a conspiracy theory of 19 muslim extremist you are promoting. Most people are just looking for answers because the Official Conspiracy Theory is so ridicules.
Sounds like you got a little confused there, sport. There is a question no amount of investigation into the falls of the towers can answer. It is the most important question of the entire business.
Why weren't hijacked planes shot down after the first impact?
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 13 2006, 11:03 PM)
common sense, you're the one with ridiculous lies.
The FDNY cried for an investigation. There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine, that called the 'investigation' a half baked farce, asking for an end to the removal of the evidence from the crime scene. To no effect, of course.
And, of course, it slipped by you.
Bull shiit. The NYC fire department isn't sayhing the building was blown up. They wanted an investigation and they got one.
You're now also adding the city of NY in your ev er expanding conspiracy since THEY were the ones who trucked the evidence away.
Slipped your mind?
The FDNY cried for an investigation. There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine, that called the 'investigation' a half baked farce, asking for an end to the removal of the evidence from the crime scene. To no effect, of course.
And, of course, it slipped by you.
Bull shiit. The NYC fire department isn't sayhing the building was blown up. They wanted an investigation and they got one.
You're now also adding the city of NY in your ev er expanding conspiracy since THEY were the ones who trucked the evidence away.
Slipped your mind?
metamars, I'm surprised you haven't understood what the implications of 60-story spires of core are.
QUOTE (metamars+)
You claim that the only "hot" spot" is at ground zero but then assume that cooling away from ground zero would negate Hoffman. (I sort of believe the "hot spot" claim in that I certainly believe all heating occurred within the Towers' footprints. )
Well, so do I- I just don't believe any of it was due to the use of demolition explosives. Because if they used demolition explosives they did so in a way that has NEVER been used in ANY demolition in the history of the world (not severing the main supports of the building at the bottom).
I see no point in continuing.
I see no point in continuing.
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 13 2006, 11:03 PM)
common sense, you're the one with ridiculous lies.
The FDNY cried for an investigation. There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine, that called the 'investigation' a half baked farce, asking for an end to the removal of the evidence from the crime scene. To no effect, of course.
And, of course, it slipped by you.
Just the way the other fifteen points in his post slipped by you? Perhaps. Got a link to that Firehouse article? I'm sure it was the WHOLE FDNY. Yeahsureyabetcha.
The FDNY cried for an investigation. There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine, that called the 'investigation' a half baked farce, asking for an end to the removal of the evidence from the crime scene. To no effect, of course.
And, of course, it slipped by you.
Just the way the other fifteen points in his post slipped by you? Perhaps. Got a link to that Firehouse article? I'm sure it was the WHOLE FDNY. Yeahsureyabetcha.
conclusive proof, eh?
whatever.
have you watched what happened to that spire, and the timing of it?
that spire no longer has any 'burden' on it. so, why did IT fall down.
(in the 911eyewitness video, you can see the second tower to FALL in the foreground. this is the tower which displays the strange behaviour of this still standing core.)
this sixty story steel frame, which has been welded together all the way up, is no longer supporting any load except itself.
it begins to tip(after 'something' explosive happens at the top of it, perhaps it is a piece of debris hitting it, and not an explosion. this would beg the question, why did this large piece of core smashing debris come down AFTER everything else. either way, it's strange in the context of the official explanation) and then falls STRAIGHT DOWN, which implies that the bottom is being taken out at the same rate as gravity.
the picture of the first tower to FALL, posted on the previous page, ...the one with the helicopter in it, may clearly indicate an increase in smoke, however, that picture was snapped seconds before the tower collapsed(as that helicopter can be seen in different videos from different angles).
that is, in fact the same helicopter that flew in the smoke plume(strange behaviour) and hovered over the building in the smoke emitting three or four bright flashes. because of the fact that this helicopter was covered in smoke, it is unlikely that these flashes are reflections of sunlight.
the squibs that occur far below the collapse horizon are clearly visible in many photos and videos. i find the likelihood of an anomolous airduct most unsatisfactory. the ejections are too far away from the collapse zone, and far too violent and localised.
many cars were flipped over and burst into flame at the base of the towers, by the 'shockwave' as reported by anne thompson.
although, i'm sure there was a lot of air to push around, and perhaps enough to flip a car, i am also sure that the FIRES were at the top of the tower, and would not ACCOMPANY a gravity driven shockwave, but rather would be the last thing to hit the ground, and frankly, would be rather smothered from all that ultrafine concrete and gypsum dust.
and, to be gruesome, how is it that people were not smeared into jelly, but rather were INSTANTLY turned into ultrafine dust as well(the dust analysis i saw was taken from the streets, and not directly from the debris pile, which means that those rapidly expanding clouds of dust you see are partly vapourised humans). at the pentagon, raging fires which evaporated aluminum didn't manage to make DNA unrecognisable(because of water content in humans), and yet at the towers, people were vapourised within seconds.
explanations unsatisfactory. 'the burden of proof' lies squarely on the shoulders of the united states government.
as long as we're making stuff up, and petting ourselves on the back for our brilliance, here's mine:
timed chemical erosion, coupled with 'trigger' explosions.
there WAS evaporated metal. (fema report)
there WAS molten steel in the basements for weeks afterwards. (nist report)
the core DID stand after all 'burden' was removed, and yet STILL collapsed on itself.
whatever.
have you watched what happened to that spire, and the timing of it?
that spire no longer has any 'burden' on it. so, why did IT fall down.
(in the 911eyewitness video, you can see the second tower to FALL in the foreground. this is the tower which displays the strange behaviour of this still standing core.)
this sixty story steel frame, which has been welded together all the way up, is no longer supporting any load except itself.
it begins to tip(after 'something' explosive happens at the top of it, perhaps it is a piece of debris hitting it, and not an explosion. this would beg the question, why did this large piece of core smashing debris come down AFTER everything else. either way, it's strange in the context of the official explanation) and then falls STRAIGHT DOWN, which implies that the bottom is being taken out at the same rate as gravity.
the picture of the first tower to FALL, posted on the previous page, ...the one with the helicopter in it, may clearly indicate an increase in smoke, however, that picture was snapped seconds before the tower collapsed(as that helicopter can be seen in different videos from different angles).
that is, in fact the same helicopter that flew in the smoke plume(strange behaviour) and hovered over the building in the smoke emitting three or four bright flashes. because of the fact that this helicopter was covered in smoke, it is unlikely that these flashes are reflections of sunlight.
the squibs that occur far below the collapse horizon are clearly visible in many photos and videos. i find the likelihood of an anomolous airduct most unsatisfactory. the ejections are too far away from the collapse zone, and far too violent and localised.
many cars were flipped over and burst into flame at the base of the towers, by the 'shockwave' as reported by anne thompson.
although, i'm sure there was a lot of air to push around, and perhaps enough to flip a car, i am also sure that the FIRES were at the top of the tower, and would not ACCOMPANY a gravity driven shockwave, but rather would be the last thing to hit the ground, and frankly, would be rather smothered from all that ultrafine concrete and gypsum dust.
and, to be gruesome, how is it that people were not smeared into jelly, but rather were INSTANTLY turned into ultrafine dust as well(the dust analysis i saw was taken from the streets, and not directly from the debris pile, which means that those rapidly expanding clouds of dust you see are partly vapourised humans). at the pentagon, raging fires which evaporated aluminum didn't manage to make DNA unrecognisable(because of water content in humans), and yet at the towers, people were vapourised within seconds.
explanations unsatisfactory. 'the burden of proof' lies squarely on the shoulders of the united states government.
as long as we're making stuff up, and petting ourselves on the back for our brilliance, here's mine:
timed chemical erosion, coupled with 'trigger' explosions.
there WAS evaporated metal. (fema report)
there WAS molten steel in the basements for weeks afterwards. (nist report)
the core DID stand after all 'burden' was removed, and yet STILL collapsed on itself.
-zoktoberfest
One tower hit high, the other low
One core struck, the other missed
One took more fuel, the other less.
One didn't pre-collapse, the other did
One endured, the other acquiesced
Dissimilar failure premises
similar failure conclusions
As the page count climbs upward, the air gets thinner. It's hard to escape that conclusion, after reading the recent posts. What's up with the one-size-fits-all theories. How can a set of failure conditions for the south tower be transposed to the north and vice-versa. Lately, the conversations have been very generic, as if the dual events have been deconstructed the into a single system. My pet peeve is the south tower. When I invoke it, I identify, refresh and reference my points within the context of the unique trauma that afflicted that building. I think it's important that the structure always be identified when discussing (sub)structural components and conditions with in it.
The theme of the south tower is angular momentum and its unexplained arrest. The theme for the north tower is insufficient mass acceleration. Be careful of mutual exclusion. A theory that clarifies an event in one building, muddies a corresponding event in the other.
One tower hit high, the other low
One core struck, the other missed
One took more fuel, the other less.
One didn't pre-collapse, the other did
One endured, the other acquiesced
Dissimilar failure premises
similar failure conclusions
As the page count climbs upward, the air gets thinner. It's hard to escape that conclusion, after reading the recent posts. What's up with the one-size-fits-all theories. How can a set of failure conditions for the south tower be transposed to the north and vice-versa. Lately, the conversations have been very generic, as if the dual events have been deconstructed the into a single system. My pet peeve is the south tower. When I invoke it, I identify, refresh and reference my points within the context of the unique trauma that afflicted that building. I think it's important that the structure always be identified when discussing (sub)structural components and conditions with in it.
The theme of the south tower is angular momentum and its unexplained arrest. The theme for the north tower is insufficient mass acceleration. Be careful of mutual exclusion. A theory that clarifies an event in one building, muddies a corresponding event in the other.
metamars , you continue to refer to the dust cloud as a 'pyroclastic flow' but now wish to say that by the time that supposedly 1000 degree cloud had gone a hundred meters (beyond the site of all but a small part of the debris) that it had cooled to the level at which humans would not immediately die from the heat?
How is that possible? It certainly does not happen in true pyroclastic flows from volcanoes.
There is no evidence that the dust cloud was at a temp of 1000 degrees other than Hoffman's calculations that it would be..As was pointed out, buildings that were only a few hundred feet away and which were covered by the dust cloud did not suffer fires except in those cases where larger debris managed to cause heavier damage(ie WTC7) and in those cases the fires were spread out on both lower and higher floors whereas if they were started by a hot flow they should be more severe on lower floors where the mixing with ambient air would be less.
As for the dust cloud expanding to much more than the volume of the building, have you any calculations for this in actual demolitions? In actual demolitions in which the amount of explosives would be much less than the supposed amount used on the towers and where most of the interior walls and furnishings and other dust producing materials have been removed, the dust cloud also runs out a long way and expands to more than the volume of the original building. Yet no one has ever referred to the dust cloud from a demolition as a 'pyroclastic flow' or said it was at a temp of 100's of degrees. In actual demolitions one can readily see that the explosives have not produced much of the dust directly or propelled the dust cloud to any great degree.
Remember the theory is that it was the explosives that caused the heat that caused the expansion and that more than what was simply required to drop the buildings was used in this. Yet at best this dust cloud closely resembles that of demolitions in which only enough explosives are used to ensure that the building drops in both temperature and extent of travel.
So what does the dust cloud prove? That when buildings collapse they create large dust clouds. That the gravity component of the collapse is what drives the cloud and that more dust will result if the building's walls and contents are not removed prior to collapse.
How is that possible? It certainly does not happen in true pyroclastic flows from volcanoes.
There is no evidence that the dust cloud was at a temp of 1000 degrees other than Hoffman's calculations that it would be..As was pointed out, buildings that were only a few hundred feet away and which were covered by the dust cloud did not suffer fires except in those cases where larger debris managed to cause heavier damage(ie WTC7) and in those cases the fires were spread out on both lower and higher floors whereas if they were started by a hot flow they should be more severe on lower floors where the mixing with ambient air would be less.
As for the dust cloud expanding to much more than the volume of the building, have you any calculations for this in actual demolitions? In actual demolitions in which the amount of explosives would be much less than the supposed amount used on the towers and where most of the interior walls and furnishings and other dust producing materials have been removed, the dust cloud also runs out a long way and expands to more than the volume of the original building. Yet no one has ever referred to the dust cloud from a demolition as a 'pyroclastic flow' or said it was at a temp of 100's of degrees. In actual demolitions one can readily see that the explosives have not produced much of the dust directly or propelled the dust cloud to any great degree.
Remember the theory is that it was the explosives that caused the heat that caused the expansion and that more than what was simply required to drop the buildings was used in this. Yet at best this dust cloud closely resembles that of demolitions in which only enough explosives are used to ensure that the building drops in both temperature and extent of travel.
So what does the dust cloud prove? That when buildings collapse they create large dust clouds. That the gravity component of the collapse is what drives the cloud and that more dust will result if the building's walls and contents are not removed prior to collapse.
QUOTE (newton+)
conclusive proof, eh?
Yep. No bombs in the basement. If this was a demolition, it was done by a means that has never been tested, and never been used by any demolition team before or since.
Stick THAT in your "no building has ever collapsed in a fire" pipe and smoke it.
Stick THAT in your "no building has ever collapsed in a fire" pipe and smoke it.
QUOTE (newton+)
that spire no longer has any 'burden' on it. so, why did IT fall down.
Well, gee, I dunno, maybe because it wasn't designed to stand on its own? Because it was unstable because the rest of the building just got done falling down around it?
Maybe it was the reptilians. Or the mini-nukes.
This 'spire' was certainly NOT in pristine condition. Any welds were not necessarily in good shape, the columns were not necessarily perfectly straight either. A whole freaking building just fell down around the 'spire' yet you assume it is as if it had been created , pristine, on the spot!
And that is not all of course. A tall structure must obey certain laws if it is to stand on its own. Too tall without proper lateral support and it will buckle under its own weight.
Maybe it was the reptilians. Or the mini-nukes.
QUOTE (newton+)
(in the 911eyewitness video, you can see the second tower to FALL in the foreground. this is the tower which displays the strange behaviour of this still standing core.)
Both buildings show it, and pictures that prove it have already been published on this thread. Here we go again, more denial.
I see no reason to continue responding to this meaningless drivel. Wise up, newton, it's over. There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. When you answer my last response to you, I will consider answering this- but you might want to keep in mind that you might not WANT me to answer it.
I see no reason to continue responding to this meaningless drivel. Wise up, newton, it's over. There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. When you answer my last response to you, I will consider answering this- but you might want to keep in mind that you might not WANT me to answer it.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 13 2006, 10:22 PM)
You should post it so using Straight edges on Computer Monitors are not necessary to speculate about theories.
In the day's of CRT monitors (so 20th century) that would be an issue.
Using today's LCD and flat panel monitors that's hardly an issue.
Of course you could just PRINT out the photo and take the monitor out of the equation.
There is a CLEAR KINK in the building, and guess what, its starts at the floors where the plane hit.
So how about THIS photo:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Notice the falling core sections (ladder type structures)
Notice the size of the perimeter column "spire" on the right.
Arthur
In the day's of CRT monitors (so 20th century) that would be an issue.
Using today's LCD and flat panel monitors that's hardly an issue.
Of course you could just PRINT out the photo and take the monitor out of the equation.
There is a CLEAR KINK in the building, and guess what, its starts at the floors where the plane hit.
So how about THIS photo:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Notice the falling core sections (ladder type structures)
Notice the size of the perimeter column "spire" on the right.
Arthur
QUOTE
have you watched what happened to that spire, and the timing of it?
that spire no longer has any 'burden' on it. so, why did IT fall down.
(in the 911eyewitness video, you can see the second tower to FALL in the foreground. this is the tower which displays the strange behaviour of this still standing core.)
this sixty story steel frame, which has been welded together all the way up, is no longer supporting any load except itself.
that spire no longer has any 'burden' on it. so, why did IT fall down.
(in the 911eyewitness video, you can see the second tower to FALL in the foreground. this is the tower which displays the strange behaviour of this still standing core.)
this sixty story steel frame, which has been welded together all the way up, is no longer supporting any load except itself.
This 'spire' was certainly NOT in pristine condition. Any welds were not necessarily in good shape, the columns were not necessarily perfectly straight either. A whole freaking building just fell down around the 'spire' yet you assume it is as if it had been created , pristine, on the spot!
And that is not all of course. A tall structure must obey certain laws if it is to stand on its own. Too tall without proper lateral support and it will buckle under its own weight.
QUOTE (zoktober+)
What's up with the one-size-fits-all theories. How can a set of failure conditions in the south tower be transposed to the north and vice-versa.
Would that be the fact that both buildings COLLAPSED? Or would that be the fact that each one left a SPIRE OF CORE MATERIAL SCORES OF STORIES HIGH? I'm sorry, I just can't quite make out what you mean here. Did you have a point?
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.