QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 16 2006, 02:43 PM)
QUOTE (bolt+Jan 16 2006, 12:47 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
They didn't get their PhDs in a cracker jack box.
How about the many professors who don't support the official story? Does the "logic" in your statement above apply to them as well. If it doesn't, this shows your complete lack of objectivity in this entire 9/11 debate.
Funny how you can compliment the "credentials" of the professors who happen to favor the official story, but refuse to acknowledge the credentials of the many professors who disagree with the government's claims.
Well that just shows you what's wrong with the Tenure system now doesn't it.
Jone's own Dept of Engineering published a statement specifically stating they did not agree with his regurgitation of the material from many CT sites.
To even begin to compare the effort that went into the NIST report, the level of research, analysis and scholarship, with that piece of crap is insulting to the nth degree.
Arthur
Not quite as Arthurian Legend would have it -
"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
Still, he is always good for a laugh -
"the effort that went into the NIST report, the level of research, analysis and scholarship"
Actuality -
"NIST describes the collapses of the towers as instances of “progressive collapse,” which happens when "a building or portion of a building collapses due to disproportionate spread of an initial local failure" (NIST Report, p. 200). NIST thereby falsely implies that the total collapses of the three WTC buildings were specific instances of a general category with other instances. NIST even claims that the collapses were “inevitable.” "
As zoktoberfest eloquently put it -
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
How about the many professors who don't support the official story? Does the "logic" in your statement above apply to them as well. If it doesn't, this shows your complete lack of objectivity in this entire 9/11 debate.
Funny how you can compliment the "credentials" of the professors who happen to favor the official story, but refuse to acknowledge the credentials of the many professors who disagree with the government's claims.
Well that just shows you what's wrong with the Tenure system now doesn't it.
Jone's own Dept of Engineering published a statement specifically stating they did not agree with his regurgitation of the material from many CT sites.
To even begin to compare the effort that went into the NIST report, the level of research, analysis and scholarship, with that piece of crap is insulting to the nth degree.
Arthur
Not quite as Arthurian Legend would have it -
"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
Still, he is always good for a laugh -
"the effort that went into the NIST report, the level of research, analysis and scholarship"
Actuality -
"NIST describes the collapses of the towers as instances of “progressive collapse,” which happens when "a building or portion of a building collapses due to disproportionate spread of an initial local failure" (NIST Report, p. 200). NIST thereby falsely implies that the total collapses of the three WTC buildings were specific instances of a general category with other instances. NIST even claims that the collapses were “inevitable.” "
As zoktoberfest eloquently put it -
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
One tower hit high, the other low
Actually both hit high, one higher than the other.
One core struck, the other missed
Actually both struck the core. The damage to the WTC 2 core was slightly more severe. More core columns severed and the damage was more asymetrical.
One took more fuel, the other less.
As NIST pointed out, the actual fuel load was not a key factor. The material in the towers provided the fuel that fed the fires. The key factor of the jet fuel was it started widespread multi-floor fires, and did so in both towers.
One didn't pre-collapse, the other did
NIST describes how the collapse progressed in each tower. It varied based on what initial damage was done and how the fires progressed in each tower.
One endured, the other acquiesced
Dissimilar failure premises
similar failure conclusions
So?
Arthur
Actually both hit high, one higher than the other.
One core struck, the other missed
Actually both struck the core. The damage to the WTC 2 core was slightly more severe. More core columns severed and the damage was more asymetrical.
One took more fuel, the other less.
As NIST pointed out, the actual fuel load was not a key factor. The material in the towers provided the fuel that fed the fires. The key factor of the jet fuel was it started widespread multi-floor fires, and did so in both towers.
One didn't pre-collapse, the other did
NIST describes how the collapse progressed in each tower. It varied based on what initial damage was done and how the fires progressed in each tower.
One endured, the other acquiesced
Dissimilar failure premises
similar failure conclusions
So?
Arthur
Faux has now been asked by both metamars and gordon to STOP the insults, to their credit. Faux, once again presented with a perfect excuse to make peace, avoids it again. Faux doesn't want peace; nor does it want to discuss what actually happened. What conclusions can we draw from this behavior? A simple question with several possible answers, none of which have anything to do with finding out what happened.
I don't see any reason why anyone who SUPPORTS CD should be talking to Faux, much less anyone who doesn't. What are you doing here, Faux?
I don't see any reason why anyone who SUPPORTS CD should be talking to Faux, much less anyone who doesn't. What are you doing here, Faux?
QUOTE (bolt+Jan 16 2006, 12:47 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
They didn't get their PhDs in a cracker jack box.
reply from bolt:
How about the many professors who don't support the official story? Does the "logic" in your statement above apply to them as well. If it doesn't, this shows your complete lack of objectivity in this entire 9/11 debate.
Funny how you can compliment the "credentials" of the professors who happen to favor the official story, but refuse to acknowledge the credentials of the many professors who disagree with the government's claims.
A water quality engineer, an economist, and a couple of physicists versus, Eager(engineer, a specialist in steel ) , Bazant and Zhou(a structural engineering Ph.D. and a Masters degree student of engineering) and a cadre of people at NIST with specifically relevant degrees and expertise.
If it is a battle of credentials bolt, you are out-gunned at every stage.
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI sheilding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequecies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frquencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI sheilding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequecies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frquencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absoption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
yesitdid Jan 16 2006, 06:43 PM
q: What does a persons credentials have to do with if they are telling the truth or not ?
a: nothing
I propose a truce, on the grounds that the official narrative relayed to us regarding 9-11 falls apart under the slightest examination and is untenable not only on a contextual level, but scientific, linguistic and legal too.
The first 40 or 50 pages of this post more than clarify the above statement.
I would say, however, if we (in the west) weren't so dependent on arms sales and narcotics to "heat up" our economies, there is a pretty good chance 9-11 wouldn't have happened....the real culprits are Government officials loyal to "a private network of operatives who have penetrated the government who are not loyal to the Constitutional chain of command but in fact to the orders that are coming from some command center outside."
The American body politic is unraveling in real time. The historical
fraud perpetuated on 9-11, did not account for new media
(decentralized technologies). The litmus test was the 7th July 2005
bombings in London, as noted in the London Guardian, "Seasoned news
executives talk of a "tipping point", a democratization of the news
process, the true birth of the "citizen reporter". The public assuming
control of the news gathering process to a hitherto unimagined
degree." The article continues.."Minutes after the bombings occurred
in London last Thursday, newsrooms around the capital were being
deluged with pictures and video clips sent directly from the scene. "
The instantaneous inconsistencies in the official story have been
documented.
The revelations about the USA government to "control the context" is
oxymoronic to say the least. What are these assholes going to do next,
cut all the "subversive" information agents´Internet lines? Internet
in inherently Democratic in nature, that´s why when Tony Blair cuts
and pastes´somebody´s old thesis to KNOWINGLY FABRICATE EVIDENCE, he´s
gonna get found out, because it´s all gone REAL TIME.
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. YOU ARE WASTING TIME. IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU WRITE OR THINK...IT'S THEIR PROBLEM
Rocking from decentral, brothers....
reply from bolt:
How about the many professors who don't support the official story? Does the "logic" in your statement above apply to them as well. If it doesn't, this shows your complete lack of objectivity in this entire 9/11 debate.
Funny how you can compliment the "credentials" of the professors who happen to favor the official story, but refuse to acknowledge the credentials of the many professors who disagree with the government's claims.
A water quality engineer, an economist, and a couple of physicists versus, Eager(engineer, a specialist in steel ) , Bazant and Zhou(a structural engineering Ph.D. and a Masters degree student of engineering) and a cadre of people at NIST with specifically relevant degrees and expertise.
If it is a battle of credentials bolt, you are out-gunned at every stage.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE
Does anybody have info on how much of IR will be reflected vs. absorbed on the skin of the column?
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI sheilding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequecies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frquencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 16 2006, 06:56 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE
Does anybody have info on how much of IR will be reflected vs. absorbed on the skin of the column?
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI sheilding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequecies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frquencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absoption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
yesitdid Jan 16 2006, 06:43 PM
QUOTE
A water quality engineer, an economist, and a couple of physicists versus, Eager(engineer, a specialist in steel ) , Bazant and Zhou(a structural engineering Ph.D. and a Masters degree student of engineering) and a cadre of people at NIST with specifically relevant degrees and expertise.
If it is a battle of credentials bolt, you are out-gunned at every stage.
If it is a battle of credentials bolt, you are out-gunned at every stage.
q: What does a persons credentials have to do with if they are telling the truth or not ?
a: nothing
I propose a truce, on the grounds that the official narrative relayed to us regarding 9-11 falls apart under the slightest examination and is untenable not only on a contextual level, but scientific, linguistic and legal too.
The first 40 or 50 pages of this post more than clarify the above statement.
I would say, however, if we (in the west) weren't so dependent on arms sales and narcotics to "heat up" our economies, there is a pretty good chance 9-11 wouldn't have happened....the real culprits are Government officials loyal to "a private network of operatives who have penetrated the government who are not loyal to the Constitutional chain of command but in fact to the orders that are coming from some command center outside."
The American body politic is unraveling in real time. The historical
fraud perpetuated on 9-11, did not account for new media
(decentralized technologies). The litmus test was the 7th July 2005
bombings in London, as noted in the London Guardian, "Seasoned news
executives talk of a "tipping point", a democratization of the news
process, the true birth of the "citizen reporter". The public assuming
control of the news gathering process to a hitherto unimagined
degree." The article continues.."Minutes after the bombings occurred
in London last Thursday, newsrooms around the capital were being
deluged with pictures and video clips sent directly from the scene. "
The instantaneous inconsistencies in the official story have been
documented.
The revelations about the USA government to "control the context" is
oxymoronic to say the least. What are these assholes going to do next,
cut all the "subversive" information agents´Internet lines? Internet
in inherently Democratic in nature, that´s why when Tony Blair cuts
and pastes´somebody´s old thesis to KNOWINGLY FABRICATE EVIDENCE, he´s
gonna get found out, because it´s all gone REAL TIME.
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. YOU ARE WASTING TIME. IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU WRITE OR THINK...IT'S THEIR PROBLEM
Rocking from decentral, brothers....
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 16 2006, 06:43 PM)
QUOTE (bolt+Jan 16 2006, 12:47 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
They didn't get their PhDs in a cracker jack box.
reply from bolt:
How about the many professors who don't support the official story? Does the "logic" in your statement above apply to them as well. If it doesn't, this shows your complete lack of objectivity in this entire 9/11 debate.
Funny how you can compliment the "credentials" of the professors who happen to favor the official story, but refuse to acknowledge the credentials of the many professors who disagree with the government's claims.
A water quality engineer, an economist, and a couple of physicists versus, Eager(engineer, a specialist in steel ) , Bazant and Zhou(a structural engineering Ph.D. and a Masters degree student of engineering) and a cadre of people at NIST with specifically relevant degrees and expertise.
If it is a battle of credentials bolt, you are out-gunned at every stage.
If Albert Einstein had written BZ's paper, it still wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on, and if BZ had authored the original papers in special and general relativity, they would still be heralded as geniuses, even if trained in another discipline.
The only refutation of the complete annhilation (after the first few millimeters of compression) that BZ suffered on this thread has been to trot out the degrees of the people related to the publication that they were published in, as well as those of B & Z.
This actually suggests a line of inquiry - have a poll limited to structural engineers (not the heads of engineering departments and their secretaries) which asks them to study the BZ paper, and then asks them in 1 weeks time what they thought about it. Specifically, ask "does the BZ paper tell us anything significant about the behavior of the WTC frame after undergoing a compression of as little as 0.4 meters?, 1.4 meters?"
Another question that should be asked is "Which of the following is more correct:
BZ's paper sheds light on the collapses of the WTC towers?
OR
BZ's paper obscures what really happened wrt the collapse of the WTC towers?
reply from bolt:
How about the many professors who don't support the official story? Does the "logic" in your statement above apply to them as well. If it doesn't, this shows your complete lack of objectivity in this entire 9/11 debate.
Funny how you can compliment the "credentials" of the professors who happen to favor the official story, but refuse to acknowledge the credentials of the many professors who disagree with the government's claims.
A water quality engineer, an economist, and a couple of physicists versus, Eager(engineer, a specialist in steel ) , Bazant and Zhou(a structural engineering Ph.D. and a Masters degree student of engineering) and a cadre of people at NIST with specifically relevant degrees and expertise.
If it is a battle of credentials bolt, you are out-gunned at every stage.
If Albert Einstein had written BZ's paper, it still wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on, and if BZ had authored the original papers in special and general relativity, they would still be heralded as geniuses, even if trained in another discipline.
The only refutation of the complete annhilation (after the first few millimeters of compression) that BZ suffered on this thread has been to trot out the degrees of the people related to the publication that they were published in, as well as those of B & Z.
This actually suggests a line of inquiry - have a poll limited to structural engineers (not the heads of engineering departments and their secretaries) which asks them to study the BZ paper, and then asks them in 1 weeks time what they thought about it. Specifically, ask "does the BZ paper tell us anything significant about the behavior of the WTC frame after undergoing a compression of as little as 0.4 meters?, 1.4 meters?"
Another question that should be asked is "Which of the following is more correct:
BZ's paper sheds light on the collapses of the WTC towers?
OR
BZ's paper obscures what really happened wrt the collapse of the WTC towers?
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 16 2006, 08:07 PM)
Metamars, I don't know why you are justifying yourself to these treasonous turds.
Not sure what you mean. My calculation was a stake through the heart, but not nearly as deadly as Gordon's calculation.
Gordon's stake through the brain of BZ was showing that metal is still bending long after BZ's paper, pushed to it's logical ends, clearly implies it would have broken.
Since steel bends before it breaks, immediately we know that BZ is wrong. Furthermore, Gordon's results imply a complete arresting of the downward movement of the top of the Tower, and so quickly that it's hard to believe in even a local collapse. If you define a local collapse as a deformation of the frame resulting in a shortening of the height by 1/2 meter, well, then I suppose you might consider BZ as allowing for such a "local collapse".
Not sure what you mean. My calculation was a stake through the heart, but not nearly as deadly as Gordon's calculation.
Gordon's stake through the brain of BZ was showing that metal is still bending long after BZ's paper, pushed to it's logical ends, clearly implies it would have broken.
Since steel bends before it breaks, immediately we know that BZ is wrong. Furthermore, Gordon's results imply a complete arresting of the downward movement of the top of the Tower, and so quickly that it's hard to believe in even a local collapse. If you define a local collapse as a deformation of the frame resulting in a shortening of the height by 1/2 meter, well, then I suppose you might consider BZ as allowing for such a "local collapse".
metamars asked
Gordon, would you be willing to write an essay on the collapse from the point of view of your knowledge of the real energy dissipative properties of steel? Also, you have obviously thought a great deal about the lateral stresses due to truss forces and the like, so that's an obvious one for you to also articulate. Also, including a discussion of the absurdities of Bazant Zhou is probably appropriate.
No problem.
I would like to have as much info as possible of the various versions of tower design detail, so if anyone can provide links, I would be grateful. I have a few bits and bobs, but don't worry about duplication.
Probably best to keep the various studies separate. Eagan's article for instance, if that's the one I remember, is relatively simple and would only serve to muddy the waters of a study of e.g Nist.
I'll give it some thought and get back to you,
Gordon.
Gordon, would you be willing to write an essay on the collapse from the point of view of your knowledge of the real energy dissipative properties of steel? Also, you have obviously thought a great deal about the lateral stresses due to truss forces and the like, so that's an obvious one for you to also articulate. Also, including a discussion of the absurdities of Bazant Zhou is probably appropriate.
No problem.
I would like to have as much info as possible of the various versions of tower design detail, so if anyone can provide links, I would be grateful. I have a few bits and bobs, but don't worry about duplication.
Probably best to keep the various studies separate. Eagan's article for instance, if that's the one I remember, is relatively simple and would only serve to muddy the waters of a study of e.g Nist.
I'll give it some thought and get back to you,
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+)
and the most interesting part of it all is, the longer we analyze it, the more we realize that the original assertion in the Nova program that the bolts, brackets, and welds holding the ends of the top chords of the trusses to the columns were where the final failure occurred becomes more and more likely.
Consider carefully:
1. The fire heats the trusses; it heats the truss rods more quickly than anything else because they are smaller and thus have a larger surface-area-to-volume ratio than any other component of the building.
2. The truss rods fail in compression, due to the original designed compressive forces, added to the compressive forces due to thermal expansion, added to the compressive forces generated by expansion of the top chord, mitigated only by thermal expansion of the bottom chord. Note as well that thermal expansion of the top chord would also act to place further compressive stress on the truss rods. So we see that there are actually FOUR sources of compression, and only one source of relief. Actually, there are two scenarios: the first is their failure in compression, the second is the failure of their welds, most likely the welds to the bottom chord since they were weaker; but in either case:
----------Already pointed out the problems with this idea, and demonstrated the far greater ability of the truss rods to relieve themselves of their strain than other members. The truss rods quite simply are not subject to such a high level of strain as the upper chord. It is therefore the upper chord which is the most likely failure point.
Consider carefully:
1. The fire heats the trusses; it heats the truss rods more quickly than anything else because they are smaller and thus have a larger surface-area-to-volume ratio than any other component of the building.
2. The truss rods fail in compression, due to the original designed compressive forces, added to the compressive forces due to thermal expansion, added to the compressive forces generated by expansion of the top chord, mitigated only by thermal expansion of the bottom chord. Note as well that thermal expansion of the top chord would also act to place further compressive stress on the truss rods. So we see that there are actually FOUR sources of compression, and only one source of relief. Actually, there are two scenarios: the first is their failure in compression, the second is the failure of their welds, most likely the welds to the bottom chord since they were weaker; but in either case:
----------Already pointed out the problems with this idea, and demonstrated the far greater ability of the truss rods to relieve themselves of their strain than other members. The truss rods quite simply are not subject to such a high level of strain as the upper chord. It is therefore the upper chord which is the most likely failure point.
I contend that it was the truss rods that were under the greatest strain since they are thinnest and would therefore show the fastest rise in temperature by both convective and radiative heat absorption.
I have reviewed several of your posts, and I see why you say that the truss rods would have the least strain: because one end of the lower chord is not attached to the building, and the other end is attached only by a visco-elastic damper (and note that the connection between the lower chord and the damper is a piece of piano wire, which indicates that it can only couple to the damper in tension, not in compression, further bolstering your argument). However, this argument ignores the fact that at the center of the truss, any lengthening of the truss rods could only be relieved by LOCAL expansion of the bottom chord (i.e. between two joints where the truss rods meet the lower chord); this means that the stress could only be relieved by expansion of the lower chord, which would happen less quickly than the expansion of the truss rods, because the lower chord was thicker and therefore would heat more slowly. Corresponding reasoning applies to the upper chord and ITS joints with the truss rods. In both cases, the expansion of the truss rods would place them in compression unless the chord lengthened to compensate; and in both cases, the chord would lengthen under the influence of heat more slowly than the truss rods because it was thicker. This effect does not depend upon the constraints or lack thereof of the ends of the chord, but only upon the constraints between the truss rods and the chord.
Now, the difference between the two chords was, the upper was constrained and the lower was not; therefore, the upper chord in the absence of other factors would undergo more strain due to heat-driven expansion (i.e., would experience more deflection). Would that deflection be greater than the deflection of the truss rods? No! Because any deflection of the upper chord would ALSO place a compressive load on the truss rods, in ADDITION to the compressive load of their heat-driven expansion, and also in ADDITION to their original, static, compressive load by design that transmits the tensive force on the upper chord to the lower chord. The only means of relief of any of these three compressive forces on the truss rods would be a lengthening of the lower chord; thus, the sections of the lower chord were under tensive force locally between each truss rod attachment; but the lower chord was not constrained, and could therefore lengthen. And in addition to this, the lower chord was ALREADY lengthening under the influence of heat-driven expansion; however, this only PARTLY offsets the THREE compressive forces on the truss rods.
Perhaps this restatement will help explain my earlier contention. In addition, there is a flaw in my argument above that there were FOUR sources of compression; the first and fourth are the same force. There were only three.
I have reviewed several of your posts, and I see why you say that the truss rods would have the least strain: because one end of the lower chord is not attached to the building, and the other end is attached only by a visco-elastic damper (and note that the connection between the lower chord and the damper is a piece of piano wire, which indicates that it can only couple to the damper in tension, not in compression, further bolstering your argument). However, this argument ignores the fact that at the center of the truss, any lengthening of the truss rods could only be relieved by LOCAL expansion of the bottom chord (i.e. between two joints where the truss rods meet the lower chord); this means that the stress could only be relieved by expansion of the lower chord, which would happen less quickly than the expansion of the truss rods, because the lower chord was thicker and therefore would heat more slowly. Corresponding reasoning applies to the upper chord and ITS joints with the truss rods. In both cases, the expansion of the truss rods would place them in compression unless the chord lengthened to compensate; and in both cases, the chord would lengthen under the influence of heat more slowly than the truss rods because it was thicker. This effect does not depend upon the constraints or lack thereof of the ends of the chord, but only upon the constraints between the truss rods and the chord.
Now, the difference between the two chords was, the upper was constrained and the lower was not; therefore, the upper chord in the absence of other factors would undergo more strain due to heat-driven expansion (i.e., would experience more deflection). Would that deflection be greater than the deflection of the truss rods? No! Because any deflection of the upper chord would ALSO place a compressive load on the truss rods, in ADDITION to the compressive load of their heat-driven expansion, and also in ADDITION to their original, static, compressive load by design that transmits the tensive force on the upper chord to the lower chord. The only means of relief of any of these three compressive forces on the truss rods would be a lengthening of the lower chord; thus, the sections of the lower chord were under tensive force locally between each truss rod attachment; but the lower chord was not constrained, and could therefore lengthen. And in addition to this, the lower chord was ALREADY lengthening under the influence of heat-driven expansion; however, this only PARTLY offsets the THREE compressive forces on the truss rods.
Perhaps this restatement will help explain my earlier contention. In addition, there is a flaw in my argument above that there were FOUR sources of compression; the first and fourth are the same force. There were only three.
QUOTE (gordon+)
3. The top chords, now unrestrained, whether because the truss rods have failed or because their welds to the bottom chord have failed, now bow due to the weight, as they would always have done had the truss rods not supported them, and this bowing is further increased by the thermal expansion of the top chords.
4. This bowing moves the weight of the floors from a vertical vector on the brackets with no shear force on the bolts
-------------pre-existing the failure, if such a failure had occurred, there would have been a shear force on the bolts arising from the force originating in the thermal expansion of the upper chord. The same force which acts through the bolts to cause the outward deflection of the columns. If these bolts were the source of failure then they would have failed when the high force arising from thermal expansion acted on them, rather than as you postulate from a proportion of the floor and floor load.
4. This bowing moves the weight of the floors from a vertical vector on the brackets with no shear force on the bolts
-------------pre-existing the failure, if such a failure had occurred, there would have been a shear force on the bolts arising from the force originating in the thermal expansion of the upper chord. The same force which acts through the bolts to cause the outward deflection of the columns. If these bolts were the source of failure then they would have failed when the high force arising from thermal expansion acted on them, rather than as you postulate from a proportion of the floor and floor load.
That would depend on whether the truss rods' ability to resist the three compressive loads exceeded the ability of the bolts and welds of the upper chords' connections to the brackets to resist ONE shear load. And remember that that load would be driven by thermal expansion of the upper chord, which would happen more slowly than thermal expansion of the truss rods, because the truss rods were thinner. Also, by design, the truss rods were under compression stress from the git-go; the truss-to-column connections were not under shear stress in the static situation. Last but not least, the expansion of the top chord would be constrained by the truss rods themselves, which is equivalent to but greater than their design function.
So what we see is that the fact that the perimeter columns were deflected inward is evidence that the truss rods on the floors showing inward deflection had already failed; had they not done so, the perimeter columns would have been deflected outward by the thermal expansion of the top chords through their connections to the brackets.
IOW, the truss rods fail first, and the top chords, now unrestrained from deflection, undergo strain downward because of the fact that their designed load is in compression (on their tops) and tension (on their bottoms) by the weight of the floor slabs (which predisposes them to deflect downward under the stress of thermal expansion), and this pulls the perimeter columns inward and the core columns outward, and places the truss-to-column connections under shear forces they were not designed to handle, until one or a few of the truss-to-column connections fail in shear. When that happens, the shear forces on the neighboring truss-to-column connections increase, and they also fail, and this process iterates both between the trusses and across the trusses' lengths until the trusses are no longer connected to the columns, at which point the floor falls.
Nova tried to simplify this, but didn't show or discuss the truss rods failing, or properly account for the shear forces separating the truss-to-bracket connections and not separating the bracket-to-column connections, and a great deal of FUD has ensued as a result of these two errors.
So what we see is that the fact that the perimeter columns were deflected inward is evidence that the truss rods on the floors showing inward deflection had already failed; had they not done so, the perimeter columns would have been deflected outward by the thermal expansion of the top chords through their connections to the brackets.
IOW, the truss rods fail first, and the top chords, now unrestrained from deflection, undergo strain downward because of the fact that their designed load is in compression (on their tops) and tension (on their bottoms) by the weight of the floor slabs (which predisposes them to deflect downward under the stress of thermal expansion), and this pulls the perimeter columns inward and the core columns outward, and places the truss-to-column connections under shear forces they were not designed to handle, until one or a few of the truss-to-column connections fail in shear. When that happens, the shear forces on the neighboring truss-to-column connections increase, and they also fail, and this process iterates both between the trusses and across the trusses' lengths until the trusses are no longer connected to the columns, at which point the floor falls.
Nova tried to simplify this, but didn't show or discuss the truss rods failing, or properly account for the shear forces separating the truss-to-bracket connections and not separating the bracket-to-column connections, and a great deal of FUD has ensued as a result of these two errors.
QUOTE (gordon+)
or the welds of the brackets to the top chords, to a mixture of vertical and horizontal force vectors that applies part of the weight to shear forces on the bolts and welds, forces these bolts and welds were never designed to handle. Originally, the only shear forces that these bolts and welds would have endured was due to swaying of the building in the wind, mitigated by the Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter columns and the spandrels. It was the welds of the brackets to the columns that withstood the shear force of the weight of the floors; and unless I miss my guess, in the initial collapse, these brackets did not separate from the columns. It was in later phases that the forces were strong enough to bull their way past these welds; in the initial collapse, it was the bolts and the welds between the brackets and the top chords that failed, and this was because of the bowing and the consequent shear forces.
5. The bolts and welds on one or a few of the top chords fail and shear.
6. This increases the shear forces on nearby top chords, and if this increase is beyond their shear strength, they too fail. Most likely, since the bolts and welds were uniform, and the bowing was likely uniform as well, they were close to their limits already, and the initial failure placed them immediately beyond their strength.
7. Remember also that perimeter column damage due to the plane impact had removed some of the perimeter columns' attachments to the trusses. It is entirely possible that the first bolts and welds to fail were adjacent to the areas where these attachments had been removed.
8. Once this happens, a wave of failures will move outward from the initial failure, probably in fractions of a second, and the trusses "unzip" from the perimeter or the core.
9. This places the stress on the column bracket welds and bolts on the other ends of the trusses, and this stress is clearly twice what it was on the initially failing end;
-------------------------No. If the failure was caused by the chord pulling on the columns then disconnection of one end would remove the ability of that end to transmit a force and since each action requires an equal and opposite reaction that pulling force cannot act on the other end. Once one end fails there can no longer be any strain, compressive or tensile, along the length of the member, Far from it being twice the stress, it would actually be zero.
5. The bolts and welds on one or a few of the top chords fail and shear.
6. This increases the shear forces on nearby top chords, and if this increase is beyond their shear strength, they too fail. Most likely, since the bolts and welds were uniform, and the bowing was likely uniform as well, they were close to their limits already, and the initial failure placed them immediately beyond their strength.
7. Remember also that perimeter column damage due to the plane impact had removed some of the perimeter columns' attachments to the trusses. It is entirely possible that the first bolts and welds to fail were adjacent to the areas where these attachments had been removed.
8. Once this happens, a wave of failures will move outward from the initial failure, probably in fractions of a second, and the trusses "unzip" from the perimeter or the core.
9. This places the stress on the column bracket welds and bolts on the other ends of the trusses, and this stress is clearly twice what it was on the initially failing end;
-------------------------No. If the failure was caused by the chord pulling on the columns then disconnection of one end would remove the ability of that end to transmit a force and since each action requires an equal and opposite reaction that pulling force cannot act on the other end. Once one end fails there can no longer be any strain, compressive or tensile, along the length of the member, Far from it being twice the stress, it would actually be zero.
But the floor still has weight, and that weight is a downward force, and that force is not relieved by the failure of the truss-to-bracket connection; it is there whether the trusses are connected to the columns or not. If there are two connections supporting that weight, and one fails, then the full force of the weight comes on the other connection.
QUOTE (gordon+)
the weight of the floor, after all, has not changed, and the collapse of the other end will have increased the angle of the top chords to these bolts and welds yet further than the bowing did. Obviously, these connections fail immediately behind their counterparts at the other ends of the trusses.
---------------------------No these connections, would no longer be subject to the mass as a tensile or compressive force transmitted through the chords. Rather the mass would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the end connection.
---------------------------No these connections, would no longer be subject to the mass as a tensile or compressive force transmitted through the chords. Rather the mass would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the end connection.
Thus increasing the shear stress on the remaining truss-to-column connections as the vector rotated around that fulcrum more and more toward the vertical, by the formula you gave above (which I spoke of in my prior post). You can look at it either way; and either way, those bolts and welds are under stress they were never meant to handle. In fact, this rotation might have been sufficient to break some brackets' connections to the columns.
But there is another consideration: the diaphragm effect. If the welds between the truss rods and the top chords have not failed, then the concrete and steel decking is still constraining the top chords somewhat even though the action of the truss rods no longer does; and that means that when one side or the other's connection to the columns fails, the newly unconstrained end falls. It will fall until the stress of the now unsupported weight equals the strain of the top-chord-plus-decking structure; at that point, the full weight will come on the remaining truss-to-column connections.
In addition, if the perimeter-column-to-truss connections fail, the perimeter columns will spring outward because they were under strain inward, or if the core-column-to-truss connections fail, the core columns will spring inward because they were under strain outward, and in either case the stress causing that strain has been relieved by the failure of the truss-to-column connections. Steel is (as you probably know) more elastic than rubber, and when stress is suddenly relieved, it will vibrate until damped. The original design counted on diaphragm action to help damp similar vibrations caused by wind, and to prevent excursions of the columns; however, the diaphragm is no longer connected to the columns and can no longer constrain them. If the excursions are large enough, then either the core or perimeter columns fail; and if this happens, then the remaining columns must take up the stress of the gravity load of the building above the failure, which in the static design is handled by both sets of columns in concert. The application of this stress to the other set of columns happens through the hat truss(es?).
The first floor to collapse may not have been enough to cause the columns to fail; but this failure increased the load on the next floor down, causing it to fail similarly. At what point did the lack of constraining diaphragms and the ever-increasing length of the unconstrained columns cause them to experience a vibratory excursion beyond their strength? Does it even matter? If each floor's collapse leads to the next floor down's failure, the columns' failure is inevitable. In addition, the floors cannot have remained intact; thus, pieces of floors are chaotically tumbling around inside the perimeter columns and outside the core. A strike from a sufficiently large segment of flooring would be sure to increase the excursion to the failure point in fairly short order.
But there is another consideration: the diaphragm effect. If the welds between the truss rods and the top chords have not failed, then the concrete and steel decking is still constraining the top chords somewhat even though the action of the truss rods no longer does; and that means that when one side or the other's connection to the columns fails, the newly unconstrained end falls. It will fall until the stress of the now unsupported weight equals the strain of the top-chord-plus-decking structure; at that point, the full weight will come on the remaining truss-to-column connections.
In addition, if the perimeter-column-to-truss connections fail, the perimeter columns will spring outward because they were under strain inward, or if the core-column-to-truss connections fail, the core columns will spring inward because they were under strain outward, and in either case the stress causing that strain has been relieved by the failure of the truss-to-column connections. Steel is (as you probably know) more elastic than rubber, and when stress is suddenly relieved, it will vibrate until damped. The original design counted on diaphragm action to help damp similar vibrations caused by wind, and to prevent excursions of the columns; however, the diaphragm is no longer connected to the columns and can no longer constrain them. If the excursions are large enough, then either the core or perimeter columns fail; and if this happens, then the remaining columns must take up the stress of the gravity load of the building above the failure, which in the static design is handled by both sets of columns in concert. The application of this stress to the other set of columns happens through the hat truss(es?).
The first floor to collapse may not have been enough to cause the columns to fail; but this failure increased the load on the next floor down, causing it to fail similarly. At what point did the lack of constraining diaphragms and the ever-increasing length of the unconstrained columns cause them to experience a vibratory excursion beyond their strength? Does it even matter? If each floor's collapse leads to the next floor down's failure, the columns' failure is inevitable. In addition, the floors cannot have remained intact; thus, pieces of floors are chaotically tumbling around inside the perimeter columns and outside the core. A strike from a sufficiently large segment of flooring would be sure to increase the excursion to the failure point in fairly short order.
QUOTE (gordon+)
I have already shown that the force involved must be well beyond the ability of that floor to support,
---------------That analysis involved the entire floor impacting the lower floor and not a proportion of it as I have shown is most likely. Furthermore the velocities used in that analysis did not take regard of the angular character of the floors fall.
---------------That analysis involved the entire floor impacting the lower floor and not a proportion of it as I have shown is most likely. Furthermore the velocities used in that analysis did not take regard of the angular character of the floors fall.
This angular character depends upon the diaphragm action of the floors under the influence of gravity, which I have shown above must lead to quick failure of the remaining truss-to-column connections. When the remaining connections fail, the floor also undergoes elastic recovery, and we have a falling vibrating diaphragm. The period of the vibrations is of some interest, but cannot have been a great deal greater than the time for sound to transit from one end to the other of the trusses. As you almost certainly know, the speed of sound through a solid is far, far greater than in air, and even in air the time for sound to travel the 104 feet from the center of the core to the outside of the perimeter would be under a tenth of a second. This was the primary consideration in my choice of a tenth of a second as the maximum time over which the impulse of the falling floor could be distributed over the resisting next lower floor. I hesitated to broach this consideration in the absence of any opposing debater capable of understanding it, but it is clear to me that you have alleviated that absence. And yes, you may and should interpret that as a compliment.
Note carefully that the period of vibration was surely far less than that tenth of a second, and the impulse equation therefore gives a proportionally greater instantaneous force, since momentum being equal to mass times velocity is also equal to force divided by time (p = mv and v = at -> p = mat, and f = ma therefore -> p = ft). But even this outside assumption (a tenth of a second) results in a force six times the standard load of a floor.
Note carefully that the period of vibration was surely far less than that tenth of a second, and the impulse equation therefore gives a proportionally greater instantaneous force, since momentum being equal to mass times velocity is also equal to force divided by time (p = mv and v = at -> p = mat, and f = ma therefore -> p = ft). But even this outside assumption (a tenth of a second) results in a force six times the standard load of a floor.
QUOTE (gordon+)
[i]and if the first one struck cannot support it, how can any floor further down be expected to? And my numerical simulation shows this as well, by showing that if the forces generated by the impulse are in excess of the capacities of the floors, then conservation of momentum is all that slows the collapse,
----------------No. A major factor of the speed of collapse and indeed the question of whether a collapse would continue or be arrested, is the deceleration which the falling upper section would necessarily be required to undergo in order for it to exert sufficient force to overcome the strength in the lower section.
----------------No. A major factor of the speed of collapse and indeed the question of whether a collapse would continue or be arrested, is the deceleration which the falling upper section would necessarily be required to undergo in order for it to exert sufficient force to overcome the strength in the lower section.
To stop the falling floor, the lower floor must decelerate it to zero. The only question is how quickly this happens, and the more rigid the floors, the more quickly- and quicker means greater force, by the impulse equation.
QUOTE (gordon+)
and by showing that if conservation of momentum is obeyed in this manner, the total time required to collapse is consistent with the observed time of collapse on the videotapes.
-----------------That analysis shows the collapse time for a tower which has no strength. In the increment of time immediately before collapse, the towers clearly still possessed the ability to stand upright. This means that they had, as a minimum, a residual strength sufficient to support the weight above them. Your analysis, having no regard even of this minimum value, gives a collapse time which could only be achieved by the sudden removal of that residual strength, in the increment of time immediately prior to collapse, or in the cases of the lower storeys during the earlier stages of collapse. A controlled demolition could do this and I can think of no other mechanism which could do this.
-----------------That analysis shows the collapse time for a tower which has no strength. In the increment of time immediately before collapse, the towers clearly still possessed the ability to stand upright. This means that they had, as a minimum, a residual strength sufficient to support the weight above them. Your analysis, having no regard even of this minimum value, gives a collapse time which could only be achieved by the sudden removal of that residual strength, in the increment of time immediately prior to collapse, or in the cases of the lower storeys during the earlier stages of collapse. A controlled demolition could do this and I can think of no other mechanism which could do this.
No, actually it works for a tower that has strength less than that necessary to resist the collapse. If the tower's strength, no matter what the precise magnitude of that strength, is insufficient to stop the collapse, then conservation of momentum takes over. The fact that my program yields approximately the observed collapse time shows that in fact the resistance of the floors must have been less compared to the magnitude of the force component of the impulse, because some of the impulse (i.e., some of the momentum) would be dissipated by chaotic behavior of the floor sections (pieces of a single floor broken apart during the floor's collapse). This dovetails nicely with the assertion that the time over which the force component of the impulse was applied was considerably shorter than a tenth of a second. And the fact that the program DOES yield approximately the observed collapse time validates the assumption (postulate!) that the strength of the floors was insufficent to support the force of a falling floor directly above them. It does so in exactly the way that the experimental tests of the theory of relativity validate the postulate of the observed constancy of the speed of light. IOW, make a postulate and follow it to its logical conclusion, then evaluate whether the behavior of the real world is duplicated by that conclusion; if it is, then there is a strong probability that the postulate was correct.
QUOTE (gordon+)
11. With the lateral support of the floors removed, the perimeter columns now have a degree of freedom to bow inward or outward. The Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter constrains the columns ACROSS the face of the building; but the FLOORS constrained it inward and outward, and the floors are gone.
12. Once the perimeter columns bend inward or outward, probably outward because they would be pushed that way by the falling floors, they collapse because they cannot support the vertical forces being no longer vertical themselves.
-------------If this situation arose, it would cause a buckling failure as the length of the beam which was becoming unsupported by floors was increased. The most likely buckling mode would be first phase because it requires least load to achieve this mode of failure. If buckling occurred it would necessarily follow after the initial floor collapse and even as the beam was buckling it would be losing more support as the lower floors continued to become disconnected. The buckling point would continue to lose its ability to resist the upper mass and the failure would continue at that weakest point. The result of this would be that the column would “elbow” with the hinge being the buckling point. There is no reason to suppose that the columns would then suffer fracture into sections but rather they would continue to fall with an angular component with further buckle points appearing as the upper section approached and passed the point where the initial buckling took place. The result of this would be long sections of outer perimeter column with massive bending, falling over while being connected only at the bottom-most points and at the join to the upper section.
12. Once the perimeter columns bend inward or outward, probably outward because they would be pushed that way by the falling floors, they collapse because they cannot support the vertical forces being no longer vertical themselves.
-------------If this situation arose, it would cause a buckling failure as the length of the beam which was becoming unsupported by floors was increased. The most likely buckling mode would be first phase because it requires least load to achieve this mode of failure. If buckling occurred it would necessarily follow after the initial floor collapse and even as the beam was buckling it would be losing more support as the lower floors continued to become disconnected. The buckling point would continue to lose its ability to resist the upper mass and the failure would continue at that weakest point. The result of this would be that the column would “elbow” with the hinge being the buckling point. There is no reason to suppose that the columns would then suffer fracture into sections but rather they would continue to fall with an angular component with further buckle points appearing as the upper section approached and passed the point where the initial buckling took place. The result of this would be long sections of outer perimeter column with massive bending, falling over while being connected only at the bottom-most points and at the join to the upper section.
In fact, large sections of connected perimeter column segments are visible falling in the videos. I'm not sure, however, that in such a chaotic situation it is possible to state that none of the perimeter column segments would be immune to being separated by the impact of floor sections as the fall progressed. This may be worth deeper analysis.
QUOTE (gordon+)
13. Once the perimeter columns collapse, the weight of all the perimeter columns and the roof and hat truss is transmitted to the core by the hat truss.
--------------------If the perimeter columns are being compressed by the upper masses including the hat truss, whether that compression leads to failure or not, they cannot then have their weight transferred to the core columns. This would only be possible if the weight of the perimeter columns were being taken by the hat truss. Both of these things, the hat truss pushing down on the perimeter columns, and the hat truss carrying the weight of the perimeter columns, cannot happen at the same time.
--------------------If the perimeter columns are being compressed by the upper masses including the hat truss, whether that compression leads to failure or not, they cannot then have their weight transferred to the core columns. This would only be possible if the weight of the perimeter columns were being taken by the hat truss. Both of these things, the hat truss pushing down on the perimeter columns, and the hat truss carrying the weight of the perimeter columns, cannot happen at the same time.
I said the WEIGHT of the perimeter columns (pulling down on the hat truss, because they are unsupported below due to the failure of the perimeter columns). The opposite situation applies if the core columns failed first; given that there are visible "spires" of core remaining after the rest of the building has fallen, I expect that the perimeter failed first, but the existence of the hat truss guarantees that whichever fails first, the weight of everything above the failure is then applied to whatever remains.
QUOTE (gordon+)
14. Since the core columns are no longer constrained by the floors, they also are now free to bend outward or inward; all that constrains them is their connections to one another, and those connections were designed to hold them in concert with the floor diaphragms, not by themselves.
15. Weakened (however much or little) by the fires, the core columns bend outward or inward at the site of the fires.
------------But again there is no mechanism which would then cause fracture, so although they may buckle they would remain largely in one piece, albeit buckled, bent and twisted
15. Weakened (however much or little) by the fires, the core columns bend outward or inward at the site of the fires.
------------But again there is no mechanism which would then cause fracture, so although they may buckle they would remain largely in one piece, albeit buckled, bent and twisted
Once they are buckled, bent, and twisted, how do they continue to support the weight of everything above them?
QUOTE (gordon+)
16. Once bowed, the core columns collapse because they are no longer vertical and cannot support the vertical force of the "curtain" of perimeter columns and the hat truss, added to their own weight, and also including the weight of all the floors above the perimeter column failure area.
---------Already pointed out that the load arising from the mass of the perimeter columns could not act on the core.
---------Already pointed out that the load arising from the mass of the perimeter columns could not act on the core.
If the perimeter column segments have buckled and no longer support the weight of the segments above them, what supports those segments? Answer: the hat truss. Where does the downward force applied to the hat truss by the force of gravity on the mass of the perimeter columns above the point where the perimeter columns buckled go? Answer: the core.
If the core buckles first, simply reverse the action of the hat truss and apply all the force to the perimeter. Either way, there is mass; either way, it must be supported; either way, the hat truss distributes the force of the damaged and supported component to the undamaged component. And in either case, the force on the remaining component is increased toward the limit of the total mass of the structure above the point of failure, times the acceleration of gravity (force being mass times acceleration).
If the core buckles first, simply reverse the action of the hat truss and apply all the force to the perimeter. Either way, there is mass; either way, it must be supported; either way, the hat truss distributes the force of the damaged and supported component to the undamaged component. And in either case, the force on the remaining component is increased toward the limit of the total mass of the structure above the point of failure, times the acceleration of gravity (force being mass times acceleration).
QUOTE (gordon+)
And there you have it. I don't say it's perfect; in fact, I expect I've missed a detail here or there. And I invite criticism of it, in order to either deny it (I don't mind starting over if it's wrong) or deny small portions of it (in order to correct it). But I expect that only small details are wrong. And it is consistent with everything we can find in the videos and in the accounts of the collapses, right down to the fact that "bangs" were heard prior to the visible initiation of the collapse. Those "bangs" were the initially collapsing floors, which must have preceded the collapse of the perimeter, which must in turn have preceded the collapse of the core.
--------------------The scenario which you have detailed would result in a pile of floors one atop the other, and the outer columns bent and twisted but still mainly in one piece and many attached to each other, extending far out into the surrounding areas. This description would not be applicable to the debris site.
--------------------The scenario which you have detailed would result in a pile of floors one atop the other, and the outer columns bent and twisted but still mainly in one piece and many attached to each other, extending far out into the surrounding areas. This description would not be applicable to the debris site.
The problem with this is that it ignores the dissipative chaotic action of the floor segments. This was observably sufficient to separate the perimeter column segments at some points, and this view is bolstered by the fact that the numerical simulation program gives approximately correct collapse times.
Furthermore, as the collapse accelerated, the impulses of the various impacts would be greater and greater; this would result in fragmentation of the floors despite the "web" of trusses. Not only that, but the impulses of the impacts of these fragments on the perimeter columns would also be increased, increasing the likelyhood of fragmentation of the perimeter columns. And since the perimeter has far more area than the core, random impacts on the perimeter would be far more likely than on the core; thus, the bottom of the perimeter fragmented, but the bottom of the core did not, at least not as a direct result of floor segment impacts. This is not to say there were no floor segment impacts on the core; it is merely to say that there were not enough of them to fragment the core below the point where the lower section of core had destroyed the falling upper section.
Furthermore, as the collapse accelerated, the impulses of the various impacts would be greater and greater; this would result in fragmentation of the floors despite the "web" of trusses. Not only that, but the impulses of the impacts of these fragments on the perimeter columns would also be increased, increasing the likelyhood of fragmentation of the perimeter columns. And since the perimeter has far more area than the core, random impacts on the perimeter would be far more likely than on the core; thus, the bottom of the perimeter fragmented, but the bottom of the core did not, at least not as a direct result of floor segment impacts. This is not to say there were no floor segment impacts on the core; it is merely to say that there were not enough of them to fragment the core below the point where the lower section of core had destroyed the falling upper section.
QUOTE (gordon+)
There are other unexplained phenomenon such as the elevated temperatures of the steel in the debris pile but that would expand the debate beyond your initial analysis so I will not include these in my reaction to your theory, except to say that a fully detailed analysis should be able to explain these phenomenon..
And the total gravity potential energy of the building and contents, combined with the chemical potential energy of the contents if burned, gives adequate explanation of the elevated temperatures. We will no doubt debate this point when we have finished with the mechanical analysis, unless you can show to your own satisfaction that this is so before we begin.
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI sheilding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequecies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frquencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absoption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
Let me provide some food for thought.
The probability of absorption of a photon by an electron in an atomic shell is dependent upon the following factors:
1. The closeness of the energy of the photon to the difference between the energy of the electron's current standing-wave pattern ("orbit," "shell," or "energy level") and available (i.e. unoccupied by other electrons) standing-wave patterns.
2. The phase difference between the photon and electron.
In a gas of iron vapor, each iron atom's electons' occupied energy levels are largely unaffected by the energy levels of nearby other atoms, since the electrons are not interacting continuously. This results in a very low spread of the energy levels, and a sharp spectral "line." However, in crystalline iron (the overwhelmingly dominant component of steel), the atoms' electrons interact closely with one another, resulting in a "spread" of the spectral line.
When a photon encounters an electron in an atom, there are two possible results:
1. The photon is absorbed.
2. The photon is unaffected.
Because of conservation of momentum (and this is not merely conservation of its magnitude but also of its direction), an atom one of whose electrons absorbs a photon "recoils." IOW, it acquires a net momentum from the photon, so that the momentum of the atom-plus-photon system is conserved. When a photon is emitted, the same thing happens. Thus, when atoms interact with photons, they move. We call this movement "heat."
"Temperature" is statistically interpreted as the likelyhood that an atom has absorbed a photon and has not re-emitted it and consequently is moving. The more likely it is that this is the case, the more likely it is that the atom is moving. And the more likely it is for a single atom, the more atoms in a substance will be moving. Atoms in a substance that is not at absolute zero are constantly emitting and absorbing photons; the more photons there are, the more likely it is that any given atom will have absorbed one and not yet re-emitted it. IOW, if a substance is "hot," then it contains more photons than if it is "cold." This provides the direct link between radiated photons and the heat content of a substance. In addition, the more of a substance there is for a given number of photons, the less is the likelyhood that any given atom has absorbed and not re-emitted a photon. This provides a direct link between the quantity of a substance and its total heat content on the one hand, and its temperature on the other.
Now, the question here is not the likelyhood of a photon being absorbed by the outside layer of a substance; it is the likelyhood of a photon travelling entirely through that substance without being absorbed. That probability decreases to a miniscule value when the substance is iron and the thickness is greater than very thin foil.
IOW, your speculation is footless. It is up to you to show that steel is either transparent to IR or that it reflects it substantially; you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
QUOTE (gordon+)
Note most carefully that objections that the fires were not sufficient to compromise the core or perimeter are proven correct; it was the truss rods (or their welds to the floor truss chords) that failed initially, and the bolts and welds of the top chords of the floor trusses that were the cause of the initial collapse. Being the smallest components, the truss rods failed first; that failure led to the failures of the bolts and welds of the top chords to the column brackets, and those failures to the collapse of the first floor to fall, and that fall to the collapse of the next, and those collapses to the failure of the perimeter, and that failure to the collapse of the perimeter, and that collapse to the failure of the core, and that failure finally to the global collapse of the buildings. It is not a simple matter, and it is not easy to understand, and this is good because it must be obvious that if it were easy to understand we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
And finally, note that it was NOT the difference of the site of impact that made the difference in the times the buildings stood; it was the difference of the insulation on the truss rods.
--------------The analysis falls down on several key points and postulations.
And finally, note that it was NOT the difference of the site of impact that made the difference in the times the buildings stood; it was the difference of the insulation on the truss rods.
--------------The analysis falls down on several key points and postulations.
I have answered your objections. Please let me know what you think after you have reviewed and analyzed my answers.
Now THIS is the way a debate goes. No insults, no imputations of stupidity, no hostility; emotion is avoided as counter-productive, correct analysis is paramount. I look forward to your response, gordon.
Now THIS is the way a debate goes. No insults, no imputations of stupidity, no hostility; emotion is avoided as counter-productive, correct analysis is paramount. I look forward to your response, gordon.
By the way, gordon, it has also occurred to me during review of the previous post that you might be contending that the floors would completely break apart into sections, and thus distribute the impulse over a greater time. This ignores the existence of the transverse trusses; the floor was not a series of unconnected slab-and-truss segments running from the core to the perimeter, but was connected between these segments transversely by the transverse trusses, forming a "web" of interconnections that would tend to keep it in one piece. Note however that the most likely segments to separate would therefore be those at the inner or outer perimeter of the "square donut" of floor slab, and those segments being closest to the columns would therefore be in the most likely position to reinforce the perimeter's outward and the core's inward vibration phases during the columns' elastic recovery and consequent vibration from the relief of the stress caused by the release of the floor's perimeter-inward and core-outward pull due to the truss rod failures, by the separation of the truss-to-column connections.
QUOTE (Schneibster+)
Now THIS is the way a debate goes. No insults, no imputations of stupidity, no hostility; emotion is avoided as counter-productive, correct analysis is paramount. I look forward to your response, gordon.
You forgot Honesty. Honesty is the most important factor in debates. Without Honesty, no matter how technically precise your posts adhere to "debate" procedure, if you are not honest, your arguements will continue to have holes in it and there will continue to be many inconsistencies in your analysis.
You forgot Honesty. Honesty is the most important factor in debates. Without Honesty, no matter how technically precise your posts adhere to "debate" procedure, if you are not honest, your arguements will continue to have holes in it and there will continue to be many inconsistencies in your analysis.
QUOTE (Common Sense+)
Who are you to question someones honesty? You aren't even honest with yourself. There is enough photographic evidence which proves you wrong yet you continue to claim moral superiority.
Now get off this thread and let them continue. Your here only to sensor real debate. Just like a neo-con.
Strange, you always seem respond to posts that are directed towards Schneibster. How come you always come as a defense for Schneibster? Your tone is also quite hostile. Were you somehow personally offended by my response to Schneibster? You have reacted emotionally to my response (which was directed towards Schneibster) as if you are Schneibster himself.
As far as being honest, everyone here knows that you, Schneibster and the rest of the "people" who support the official story are continuously lying and continue to recycle your dead arguements over and over again. And stop calling me a Neo-Con. I dislike Bush and don't support the official story. You on the other hand, are an avid supporter of the official story. You always seems to resort to hypocritical remarks, hoping that many people will buy into your lies.
I do not claim "Moral Superiority". The fact that you claim I do, shows your "Moral Inferiority" complex. I am basically stating a personal observation, in which the greater majority in this forum, also consistently notice and share-- and that is, you are not honest with your arguements and constantly lie and manipulate information. This is of course, your repetitive attempts to obscure the truthful evidence.
Now get off this thread and let them continue. Your here only to sensor real debate. Just like a neo-con.
Strange, you always seem respond to posts that are directed towards Schneibster. How come you always come as a defense for Schneibster? Your tone is also quite hostile. Were you somehow personally offended by my response to Schneibster? You have reacted emotionally to my response (which was directed towards Schneibster) as if you are Schneibster himself.
As far as being honest, everyone here knows that you, Schneibster and the rest of the "people" who support the official story are continuously lying and continue to recycle your dead arguements over and over again. And stop calling me a Neo-Con. I dislike Bush and don't support the official story. You on the other hand, are an avid supporter of the official story. You always seems to resort to hypocritical remarks, hoping that many people will buy into your lies.
I do not claim "Moral Superiority". The fact that you claim I do, shows your "Moral Inferiority" complex. I am basically stating a personal observation, in which the greater majority in this forum, also consistently notice and share-- and that is, you are not honest with your arguements and constantly lie and manipulate information. This is of course, your repetitive attempts to obscure the truthful evidence.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 16 2006, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 16 2006, 06:56 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE
Does anybody have info on how much of IR will be reflected vs. absorbed on the skin of the column?
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI sheilding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequecies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frquencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absoption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
Let me provide some food for thought.
The probability of absorption of a photon by an electron in an atomic shell is dependent upon the following factors:
1. The closeness of the energy of the photon to the difference between the energy of the electron's current standing-wave pattern ("orbit," "shell," or "energy level") and available (i.e. unoccupied by other electrons) standing-wave patterns.
2. The phase difference between the photon and electron.
In a gas of iron vapor, each iron atom's electons' occupied energy levels are largely unaffected by the energy levels of nearby other atoms, since the electrons are not interacting continuously. This results in a very low spread of the energy levels, and a sharp spectral "line." However, in crystalline iron (the overwhelmingly dominant component of steel), the atoms' electrons interact closely with one another, resulting in a "spread" of the spectral line.
When a photon encounters an electron in an atom, there are two possible results:
1. The photon is absorbed.
2. The photon is unaffected.
Because of conservation of momentum (and this is not merely conservation of its magnitude but also of its direction), an atom one of whose electrons absorbs a photon "recoils." IOW, it acquires a net momentum from the photon, so that the momentum of the atom-plus-photon system is conserved. When a photon is emitted, the same thing happens. Thus, when atoms interact with photons, they move. We call this movement "heat."
"Temperature" is statistically interpreted as the likelyhood that an atom has absorbed a photon and has not re-emitted it and consequently is moving. The more likely it is that this is the case, the more likely it is that the atom is moving. And the more likely it is for a single atom, the more atoms in a substance will be moving. Atoms in a substance that is not at absolute zero are constantly emitting and absorbing photons; the more photons there are, the more likely it is that any given atom will have absorbed one and not yet re-emitted it. IOW, if a substance is "hot," then it contains more photons than if it is "cold." This provides the direct link between radiated photons and the heat content of a substance. In addition, the more of a substance there is for a given number of photons, the less is the likelyhood that any given atom has absorbed and not re-emitted a photon. This provides a direct link between the quantity of a substance and its total heat content on the one hand, and its temperature on the other.
Now, the question here is not the likelyhood of a photon being absorbed by the outside layer of a substance; it is the likelyhood of a photon travelling entirely through that substance without being absorbed. That probability decreases to a miniscule value when the substance is iron and the thickness is greater than very thin foil.
IOW, your speculation is footless. It is up to you to show that steel is either transparent to IR or that it reflects it substantially; you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
QUOTE (bolt+Jan 16 2006, 09:21 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+)
Now THIS is the way a debate goes. No insults, no imputations of stupidity, no hostility; emotion is avoided as counter-productive, correct analysis is paramount. I look forward to your response, gordon.
You forgot Honesty. Honesty is the most important factor in debates. Without Honesty, no matter how technically precise your posts adhere to "debate" procedure, if you are not honest, your arguements will continue to have holes in it and there will continue to be many inconsistencies in your analysis.
Honesty is discernable from whether an argument that invalidates a previous argument is answered, or ignored; and you'll note that I am not ignoring gordon's arguments, nor is s/he (I NEVER assume gender, although gordon is probably male it would be presumptuous of me to assume it) ignoring mine. Gordon is honestly pointing out what s/he believes are fallacies in my arguments, and I am doing the same with hir arguments.
Where dishonesty would come in would be if one were to assume that such an answer, itself reputedly refuted by later unanswered arguments, were correct despite the existence of those arguments; and in fact, that is precisely the type of dishonesty YOU are engaging in. If you make an argument, and that argument is reputedly refuted by a later argument, and you do not respond to that refutation, then your argument remains refuted. To repeat the argument without responding to the refutation is therefore a dishonest act; this can only be mitigated by acknowledgement that you did not see the refutation, and either an answer to the refutation or an admission that your argument was incorrect. ANY OTHER COURSE IS DISHONEST.
Continuing to debate with someone who refuses to answer or acknowledge refutations is pointless. It is also frustrating, and you have seen ample evidence of this exact type of frustration on my part. Since I now have someone to debate who does not engage in these dishonest tactics, I am no longer frustrated, and I no longer see any point in debating those who use them. Like you, for example. You can either learn the lesson gordon has to teach you, or you can be ignored, at least by me, along with everyone else who uses such tactics. It's your choice. And by your choice your honesty or lack thereof will be clearly apparent to everyone reading your response. If you want to participate honestly, and you answer previous criticisms of your position and reassert it, you are welcome; if you merely reassert your previous position without acknowledging those arguments, then you will be ignored.
You forgot Honesty. Honesty is the most important factor in debates. Without Honesty, no matter how technically precise your posts adhere to "debate" procedure, if you are not honest, your arguements will continue to have holes in it and there will continue to be many inconsistencies in your analysis.
Honesty is discernable from whether an argument that invalidates a previous argument is answered, or ignored; and you'll note that I am not ignoring gordon's arguments, nor is s/he (I NEVER assume gender, although gordon is probably male it would be presumptuous of me to assume it) ignoring mine. Gordon is honestly pointing out what s/he believes are fallacies in my arguments, and I am doing the same with hir arguments.
Where dishonesty would come in would be if one were to assume that such an answer, itself reputedly refuted by later unanswered arguments, were correct despite the existence of those arguments; and in fact, that is precisely the type of dishonesty YOU are engaging in. If you make an argument, and that argument is reputedly refuted by a later argument, and you do not respond to that refutation, then your argument remains refuted. To repeat the argument without responding to the refutation is therefore a dishonest act; this can only be mitigated by acknowledgement that you did not see the refutation, and either an answer to the refutation or an admission that your argument was incorrect. ANY OTHER COURSE IS DISHONEST.
Continuing to debate with someone who refuses to answer or acknowledge refutations is pointless. It is also frustrating, and you have seen ample evidence of this exact type of frustration on my part. Since I now have someone to debate who does not engage in these dishonest tactics, I am no longer frustrated, and I no longer see any point in debating those who use them. Like you, for example. You can either learn the lesson gordon has to teach you, or you can be ignored, at least by me, along with everyone else who uses such tactics. It's your choice. And by your choice your honesty or lack thereof will be clearly apparent to everyone reading your response. If you want to participate honestly, and you answer previous criticisms of your position and reassert it, you are welcome; if you merely reassert your previous position without acknowledging those arguments, then you will be ignored.
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 16 2006, 09:04 PM)
metamars asked
Gordon, would you be willing to write an essay on the collapse from the point of view of your knowledge of the real energy dissipative properties of steel? Also, you have obviously thought a great deal about the lateral stresses due to truss forces and the like, so that's an obvious one for you to also articulate. Also, including a discussion of the absurdities of Bazant Zhou is probably appropriate.
No problem.
I would like to have as much info as possible of the various versions of tower design detail, so if anyone can provide links, I would be grateful. I have a few bits and bobs, but don't worry about duplication.
Probably best to keep the various studies separate. Eagan's article for instance, if that's the one I remember, is relatively simple and would only serve to muddy the waters of a study of e.g Nist.
I'll give it some thought and get back to you,
Gordon.
Great, thanks. I'm sure Professor Fetzer will also be very appreciative.
Foxx, would you please collate these references that Gordon is requesting? You are much more up on the building details than I will ever be. I mean the ones you have, already. If you can get a sense of what you don't have, but would be profitable to communicate to Gordon if you did have, please try and communicate this info, also.
Gordon, would you be willing to write an essay on the collapse from the point of view of your knowledge of the real energy dissipative properties of steel? Also, you have obviously thought a great deal about the lateral stresses due to truss forces and the like, so that's an obvious one for you to also articulate. Also, including a discussion of the absurdities of Bazant Zhou is probably appropriate.
No problem.
I would like to have as much info as possible of the various versions of tower design detail, so if anyone can provide links, I would be grateful. I have a few bits and bobs, but don't worry about duplication.
Probably best to keep the various studies separate. Eagan's article for instance, if that's the one I remember, is relatively simple and would only serve to muddy the waters of a study of e.g Nist.
I'll give it some thought and get back to you,
Gordon.
Great, thanks. I'm sure Professor Fetzer will also be very appreciative.
Foxx, would you please collate these references that Gordon is requesting? You are much more up on the building details than I will ever be. I mean the ones you have, already. If you can get a sense of what you don't have, but would be profitable to communicate to Gordon if you did have, please try and communicate this info, also.
Thanks, CS, I appreciate it. You clearly see that the use of the tactics of frustration is intended to inhibit debate rather than encourage it, and want to see honest debate. I'll leave it to you, then, and try to give you what you want (honest, reasoned debate).
gordon, though incomplete in many ways, and filled with incorrect conclusions, some structural detail is available from here.
QUOTE (,--+)
from super-genius 'commen sense'
Or take a position with synaticly challenged morons like this.
that's 'synaptically challenged', no, common sense? just for the record.
p.s. frater plecticus, you are one aware mofo. kudos. the boys down at decentral are all laughing their arses off around the really fractionalised water cooler.
nice to see a spirit of cooperation around here, even if it is 'danciong with the devil'.
QUOTE
(frater plecticus @ Jan 16 2006, 08:07 PM)
Metamars, I don't know why you are justifying yourself to these treasonous turds.
Metamars, I don't know why you are justifying yourself to these treasonous turds.
Or take a position with synaticly challenged morons like this.
that's 'synaptically challenged', no, common sense? just for the record.
p.s. frater plecticus, you are one aware mofo. kudos. the boys down at decentral are all laughing their arses off around the really fractionalised water cooler.
nice to see a spirit of cooperation around here, even if it is 'danciong with the devil'.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 16 2006, 07:52 PM)
yesitdid Jan 16 2006, 06:43 PM
q: What does a persons credentials have to do with if they are telling the truth or not ?
a: nothing
Ask bolt, I was responding to his:
q: What does a persons credentials have to do with if they are telling the truth or not ?
a: nothing
Ask bolt, I was responding to his:
How about the many professors who don't support the official story? Does the "logic" in your statement above apply to them as well. If it doesn't, this shows your complete lack of objectivity in this entire 9/11 debate.
At any rate the point is not whether or not one is telling the truth, it is whether or not the person is correct. I trust you know the difference.
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI sheilding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequecies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frquencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absoption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
Let me provide some food for thought.
The probability of absorption of a photon by an electron in an atomic shell is dependent upon the following factors:
1. The closeness of the energy of the photon to the difference between the energy of the electron's current standing-wave pattern ("orbit," "shell," or "energy level") and available (i.e. unoccupied by other electrons) standing-wave patterns.
2. The phase difference between the photon and electron.
In a gas of iron vapor, each iron atom's electons' occupied energy levels are largely unaffected by the energy levels of nearby other atoms, since the electrons are not interacting continuously. This results in a very low spread of the energy levels, and a sharp spectral "line." However, in crystalline iron (the overwhelmingly dominant component of steel), the atoms' electrons interact closely with one another, resulting in a "spread" of the spectral line.
When a photon encounters an electron in an atom, there are two possible results:
1. The photon is absorbed.
2. The photon is unaffected.
Because of conservation of momentum (and this is not merely conservation of its magnitude but also of its direction), an atom one of whose electrons absorbs a photon "recoils." IOW, it acquires a net momentum from the photon, so that the momentum of the atom-plus-photon system is conserved. When a photon is emitted, the same thing happens. Thus, when atoms interact with photons, they move. We call this movement "heat."
"Temperature" is statistically interpreted as the likelyhood that an atom has absorbed a photon and has not re-emitted it and consequently is moving. The more likely it is that this is the case, the more likely it is that the atom is moving. And the more likely it is for a single atom, the more atoms in a substance will be moving. Atoms in a substance that is not at absolute zero are constantly emitting and absorbing photons; the more photons there are, the more likely it is that any given atom will have absorbed one and not yet re-emitted it. IOW, if a substance is "hot," then it contains more photons than if it is "cold." This provides the direct link between radiated photons and the heat content of a substance. In addition, the more of a substance there is for a given number of photons, the less is the likelyhood that any given atom has absorbed and not re-emitted a photon. This provides a direct link between the quantity of a substance and its total heat content on the one hand, and its temperature on the other.
Now, the question here is not the likelyhood of a photon being absorbed by the outside layer of a substance; it is the likelyhood of a photon travelling entirely through that substance without being absorbed. That probability decreases to a miniscule value when the substance is iron and the thickness is greater than very thin foil.
IOW, your speculation is footless. It is up to you to show that steel is either transparent to IR or that it reflects it substantially; you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
I don't understand your point(s).
Firstly, are you disputing that if a surface reflects 90% of em radiation incident upon it, that it will absorb, at the most, 10% of the energy associated with that radiation?
Secondly, you speak about transmission, but the other reference I gave clearly states that IR will not transmit through metal.
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI sheilding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequecies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frquencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absoption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
Let me provide some food for thought.
The probability of absorption of a photon by an electron in an atomic shell is dependent upon the following factors:
1. The closeness of the energy of the photon to the difference between the energy of the electron's current standing-wave pattern ("orbit," "shell," or "energy level") and available (i.e. unoccupied by other electrons) standing-wave patterns.
2. The phase difference between the photon and electron.
In a gas of iron vapor, each iron atom's electons' occupied energy levels are largely unaffected by the energy levels of nearby other atoms, since the electrons are not interacting continuously. This results in a very low spread of the energy levels, and a sharp spectral "line." However, in crystalline iron (the overwhelmingly dominant component of steel), the atoms' electrons interact closely with one another, resulting in a "spread" of the spectral line.
When a photon encounters an electron in an atom, there are two possible results:
1. The photon is absorbed.
2. The photon is unaffected.
Because of conservation of momentum (and this is not merely conservation of its magnitude but also of its direction), an atom one of whose electrons absorbs a photon "recoils." IOW, it acquires a net momentum from the photon, so that the momentum of the atom-plus-photon system is conserved. When a photon is emitted, the same thing happens. Thus, when atoms interact with photons, they move. We call this movement "heat."
"Temperature" is statistically interpreted as the likelyhood that an atom has absorbed a photon and has not re-emitted it and consequently is moving. The more likely it is that this is the case, the more likely it is that the atom is moving. And the more likely it is for a single atom, the more atoms in a substance will be moving. Atoms in a substance that is not at absolute zero are constantly emitting and absorbing photons; the more photons there are, the more likely it is that any given atom will have absorbed one and not yet re-emitted it. IOW, if a substance is "hot," then it contains more photons than if it is "cold." This provides the direct link between radiated photons and the heat content of a substance. In addition, the more of a substance there is for a given number of photons, the less is the likelyhood that any given atom has absorbed and not re-emitted a photon. This provides a direct link between the quantity of a substance and its total heat content on the one hand, and its temperature on the other.
Now, the question here is not the likelyhood of a photon being absorbed by the outside layer of a substance; it is the likelyhood of a photon travelling entirely through that substance without being absorbed. That probability decreases to a miniscule value when the substance is iron and the thickness is greater than very thin foil.
IOW, your speculation is footless. It is up to you to show that steel is either transparent to IR or that it reflects it substantially; you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
I don't understand your point(s).
Firstly, are you disputing that if a surface reflects 90% of em radiation incident upon it, that it will absorb, at the most, 10% of the energy associated with that radiation?
Secondly, you speak about transmission, but the other reference I gave clearly states that IR will not transmit through metal.
http://www.driir.com/technical2.html
For example, metals do not transmit IR radiation of any wavelength. All the IR radiation incident on a metal is absorbed or reflected at the surface.
We are talking about steel often 100 mm thick, e.g., so "quantum tunneling", if it's possible at all, should be neglible. Thus, I take "all" to mean 99.99%+.
While the general description:
Incident Energy = Reflected Energy + Transmitted Energy + Absorbed Energy
might generally hold, once we know that Transmitted Energy is 0, then we are obviously left with just Reflected and Absorbed Energies to be concerned about.
Are you disputing this general conservation of energy equation, and it's 'derivation' in the special case that Transmitted Energy* is 0, or aren't you?
==============
As far as calculating, from first principles, what the exact proportions are at IR frequencies, I won't be doing that anytime soon. I would be happy to look it up without investing a lot of time (already tried that), and even happier if somebody else looked it up for me. Do you have ready access to this data? Anybody else?
QUOTE
A water quality engineer, an economist, and a couple of physicists versus, Eager(engineer, a specialist in steel ) , Bazant and Zhou(a structural engineering Ph.D. and a Masters degree student of engineering) and a cadre of people at NIST with specifically relevant degrees and expertise.
If it is a battle of credentials bolt, you are out-gunned at every stage.
If it is a battle of credentials bolt, you are out-gunned at every stage.
q: What does a persons credentials have to do with if they are telling the truth or not ?
a: nothing
Ask bolt, I was responding to his:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A water quality engineer, an economist, and a couple of physicists versus, Eager(engineer, a specialist in steel ) , Bazant and Zhou(a structural engineering Ph.D. and a Masters degree student of engineering) and a cadre of people at NIST with specifically relevant degrees and expertise. If it is a battle of credentials bolt, you are out-gunned at every stage. |
q: What does a persons credentials have to do with if they are telling the truth or not ?
a: nothing
Ask bolt, I was responding to his:
How about the many professors who don't support the official story? Does the "logic" in your statement above apply to them as well. If it doesn't, this shows your complete lack of objectivity in this entire 9/11 debate.
At any rate the point is not whether or not one is telling the truth, it is whether or not the person is correct. I trust you know the difference.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 16 2006, 10:02 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 16 2006, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 16 2006, 06:56 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE
Does anybody have info on how much of IR will be reflected vs. absorbed on the skin of the column?
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI sheilding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequecies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frquencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absoption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
Let me provide some food for thought.
The probability of absorption of a photon by an electron in an atomic shell is dependent upon the following factors:
1. The closeness of the energy of the photon to the difference between the energy of the electron's current standing-wave pattern ("orbit," "shell," or "energy level") and available (i.e. unoccupied by other electrons) standing-wave patterns.
2. The phase difference between the photon and electron.
In a gas of iron vapor, each iron atom's electons' occupied energy levels are largely unaffected by the energy levels of nearby other atoms, since the electrons are not interacting continuously. This results in a very low spread of the energy levels, and a sharp spectral "line." However, in crystalline iron (the overwhelmingly dominant component of steel), the atoms' electrons interact closely with one another, resulting in a "spread" of the spectral line.
When a photon encounters an electron in an atom, there are two possible results:
1. The photon is absorbed.
2. The photon is unaffected.
Because of conservation of momentum (and this is not merely conservation of its magnitude but also of its direction), an atom one of whose electrons absorbs a photon "recoils." IOW, it acquires a net momentum from the photon, so that the momentum of the atom-plus-photon system is conserved. When a photon is emitted, the same thing happens. Thus, when atoms interact with photons, they move. We call this movement "heat."
"Temperature" is statistically interpreted as the likelyhood that an atom has absorbed a photon and has not re-emitted it and consequently is moving. The more likely it is that this is the case, the more likely it is that the atom is moving. And the more likely it is for a single atom, the more atoms in a substance will be moving. Atoms in a substance that is not at absolute zero are constantly emitting and absorbing photons; the more photons there are, the more likely it is that any given atom will have absorbed one and not yet re-emitted it. IOW, if a substance is "hot," then it contains more photons than if it is "cold." This provides the direct link between radiated photons and the heat content of a substance. In addition, the more of a substance there is for a given number of photons, the less is the likelyhood that any given atom has absorbed and not re-emitted a photon. This provides a direct link between the quantity of a substance and its total heat content on the one hand, and its temperature on the other.
Now, the question here is not the likelyhood of a photon being absorbed by the outside layer of a substance; it is the likelyhood of a photon travelling entirely through that substance without being absorbed. That probability decreases to a miniscule value when the substance is iron and the thickness is greater than very thin foil.
IOW, your speculation is footless. It is up to you to show that steel is either transparent to IR or that it reflects it substantially; you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
I don't understand your point(s).
Firstly, are you disputing that if a surface reflects 90% of em radiation incident upon it, that it will absorb, at the most, 10% of the energy associated with that radiation?
Secondly, you speak about transmission, but the other reference I gave clearly states that IR will not transmit through metal.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Does anybody have info on how much of IR will be reflected vs. absorbed on the skin of the column? |
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI sheilding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequecies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frquencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absoption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
Let me provide some food for thought.
The probability of absorption of a photon by an electron in an atomic shell is dependent upon the following factors:
1. The closeness of the energy of the photon to the difference between the energy of the electron's current standing-wave pattern ("orbit," "shell," or "energy level") and available (i.e. unoccupied by other electrons) standing-wave patterns.
2. The phase difference between the photon and electron.
In a gas of iron vapor, each iron atom's electons' occupied energy levels are largely unaffected by the energy levels of nearby other atoms, since the electrons are not interacting continuously. This results in a very low spread of the energy levels, and a sharp spectral "line." However, in crystalline iron (the overwhelmingly dominant component of steel), the atoms' electrons interact closely with one another, resulting in a "spread" of the spectral line.
When a photon encounters an electron in an atom, there are two possible results:
1. The photon is absorbed.
2. The photon is unaffected.
Because of conservation of momentum (and this is not merely conservation of its magnitude but also of its direction), an atom one of whose electrons absorbs a photon "recoils." IOW, it acquires a net momentum from the photon, so that the momentum of the atom-plus-photon system is conserved. When a photon is emitted, the same thing happens. Thus, when atoms interact with photons, they move. We call this movement "heat."
"Temperature" is statistically interpreted as the likelyhood that an atom has absorbed a photon and has not re-emitted it and consequently is moving. The more likely it is that this is the case, the more likely it is that the atom is moving. And the more likely it is for a single atom, the more atoms in a substance will be moving. Atoms in a substance that is not at absolute zero are constantly emitting and absorbing photons; the more photons there are, the more likely it is that any given atom will have absorbed one and not yet re-emitted it. IOW, if a substance is "hot," then it contains more photons than if it is "cold." This provides the direct link between radiated photons and the heat content of a substance. In addition, the more of a substance there is for a given number of photons, the less is the likelyhood that any given atom has absorbed and not re-emitted a photon. This provides a direct link between the quantity of a substance and its total heat content on the one hand, and its temperature on the other.
Now, the question here is not the likelyhood of a photon being absorbed by the outside layer of a substance; it is the likelyhood of a photon travelling entirely through that substance without being absorbed. That probability decreases to a miniscule value when the substance is iron and the thickness is greater than very thin foil.
IOW, your speculation is footless. It is up to you to show that steel is either transparent to IR or that it reflects it substantially; you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
I don't understand your point(s).
Firstly, are you disputing that if a surface reflects 90% of em radiation incident upon it, that it will absorb, at the most, 10% of the energy associated with that radiation?
Secondly, you speak about transmission, but the other reference I gave clearly states that IR will not transmit through metal.
http://www.driir.com/technical2.html
For example, metals do not transmit IR radiation of any wavelength. All the IR radiation incident on a metal is absorbed or reflected at the surface.
We are talking about steel often 100 mm thick, e.g., so "quantum tunneling", if it's possible at all, should be neglible. Thus, I take "all" to mean 99.99%+.
While the general description:
Incident Energy = Reflected Energy + Transmitted Energy + Absorbed Energy
might generally hold, once we know that Transmitted Energy is 0, then we are obviously left with just Reflected and Absorbed Energies to be concerned about.
Are you disputing this general conservation of energy equation, and it's 'derivation' in the special case that Transmitted Energy* is 0, or aren't you?
==============
As far as calculating, from first principles, what the exact proportions are at IR frequencies, I won't be doing that anytime soon. I would be happy to look it up without investing a lot of time (already tried that), and even happier if somebody else looked it up for me. Do you have ready access to this data? Anybody else?
QUOTE (metamars+)
Firstly, are you disputing that if a surface reflects 90% of em radiation incident upon it, that it will absorb, at the most, 10% of the energy associated with that radiation?
No. Are you asserting that steel reflects 90% of the IR incident on it? Or even that there is any possibility that structural steel is capable of doing so? Have you considered that if that were true, there would be little point in putting insulation on it?
QUOTE (metamars+)
Are you disputing this general conservation of energy equation, and it's 'derivation' in the special case that Transmitted Energy* is 0, or aren't you?
No. What I'm disputing is your reflection claim (which was not at all clear from what you wrote initially, but is clear now).
Hi metamars, I actually have been working on putting together one for some time. The amount of research needed is huge. I couldn't begin to calculate the hours I have put into this project. The search for accurate details of the WTC towers is a long and frustrating one. I wasn't studying building constructions in general prior to 2001 ... even though I have worked with architects as far back as 1976 designing and fabricating a number of building structures with reinforced composites.
I would dearly love to get ahold of the actual WTC blueprints.
Having had a lot of experience reading blueprints myself, these could answer quickly many questions that I have about the actual construction of the towers... not to mention putting to rest many myths and obfuscations which have been fostered on the public.
As I understand it there was a massive amount of engineering and construction details on the towers PRE-2001, but unfortunately the web has been swept pretty clean of those articles and information.
Apparently NIST was finally able (after much pressure) to get ahold of the actual blueprints, and although they provide tantalizing bits & pieces of info in their reports, it's akin to offering a starving man 1 grape from a whole grapevine. Much of what I find, just immediately leads to a dozen other questions I have... entirely frustrating!
Gordon ... as to your query below...
Hi metamars, I actually have been working on putting together one for some time. The amount of research needed is huge. I couldn't begin to calculate the hours I have put into this project. The search for accurate details of the WTC towers is a long and frustrating one. I wasn't studying building constructions in general prior to 2001 ... even though I have worked with architects as far back as 1976 designing and fabricating a number of building structures with reinforced composites.
I would dearly love to get ahold of the actual WTC blueprints.
Having had a lot of experience reading blueprints myself, these could answer quickly many questions that I have about the actual construction of the towers... not to mention putting to rest many myths and obfuscations which have been fostered on the public.
As I understand it there was a massive amount of engineering and construction details on the towers PRE-2001, but unfortunately the web has been swept pretty clean of those articles and information.
Apparently NIST was finally able (after much pressure) to get ahold of the actual blueprints, and although they provide tantalizing bits & pieces of info in their reports, it's akin to offering a starving man 1 grape from a whole grapevine. Much of what I find, just immediately leads to a dozen other questions I have... entirely frustrating!
Gordon ... as to your query below...
I would like to have as much info as possible of the various versions of tower design detail, so if anyone can provide links, I would be grateful. I have a few bits and bobs, but don't worry about duplication.
As I said above, there is not a great deal available on the actual design and construction details. However, even though for the most part the FEMA reports were a JOKE, you can find some good engineering design snippets in their reports. ( Best to just take the ACTUAL FACTS contained in those reports and ignore their extrapolations of what those details mean). I have listed the FEMA reports below.
Soon after the FEMA reports came out there was an anonymous web entity (often referred to as the Guardian who produced the first real debunking of the FEMA Fairy Tale.
He produced a website called 'Guardian/Nerdcities'.
For a time he was a prolific writer and exposer of FEMA... VERY VOCAL... a REAL Thorn-in-the-side to the 'official story'. He was TOO vocal to just voluntarily suddenly go silent. However, he has. Speculation is that he must now be dead.
He CERTAINLY MUST have had some inside knowledge of the construction of the towers, because he was revealing things which (at the time) were completely unknown to the general public regarding the construction details...this, at a time when (seemingly) the mass media --- including NOVA & MIT whiz Thomas Eagar --- were doing everything in their power to hide the construction details of the central core construction.
( http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled001.html )
The 'Guardian/Nerdcities' website has now been cached at Hoffmans 9/11 Research website as a public service.
This collection of articles by the Guardian 'deepthroat' is really the most extensive collection of articles on the towers construction that I have been able to find. The collection of Engineering Report articles is excellent.
Evidence of Explosives in the World Trade Center Towers collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosions.htm
Why did the World Trade Center Towers Fall? A Review of Thomas Eagar's (of MIT) Article.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/nova.htm
Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. A Review of Charles Clifton's Article.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/clifton.htm
The Jet Fuel; How hot did it heat the World Trade Center?
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/how-hot.htm
Proof the Twin Towers were Deliberately Demolished.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/proof.htm
The FEMA Report into the World Trade Center 7 Collapse is a Total Joke.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC7-short.htm
Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel: The World Trade Center.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/godfrey.htm
Some Articles from Engineering News Record. ...{EXCELLENT}
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
Comments on the World Trade Center Demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-demolition.htm
Microsoft Software used to simulate the crash of a Boeing 747 into the World Trade Center.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...c-microsoft.htm
University of California, Berkeley Professor, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl Testifies.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...astaneh-wtc.htm
The World Trade Center 7 Explosion Myth.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...e-explosion.htm
The World Trade Center Towers collapse as an Enormous Insurance Scam
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...urance-scam.htm
What went wrong with the investigation? By Eric Hufschmid (with comment).
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...Questions_1.htm
Sixty State Street and the World Trade Center towers: A Comparison.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...onstruction.htm
In addition the 'Guardian' transcribed the full FEMA report to html format for ease of access...(These usually have added notes and explainations added in red by 'Guardian' to the documents)...
Table Of Contents for the FEMA World Trade Center Report.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_toc.htm
Chapter 1 of the FEMA WTC Report: Introduction (with comment).
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch1.htm
Chapter 2 of the FEMA WTC Report: The Twin Towers (with comment).
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch2.htm
Chapter 3 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC 3.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch3.htm
Chapter 4 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC 4, 5, and 6.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch4.htm
Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: World Trade Center Seven (with comment).
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch5.htm
Chapter 6 of the FEMA WTC Report: Bankers Trust Building.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch6.htm
Chapter 7 of the FEMA WTC Report: Peripheral Buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch7.htm
Appendix A of the FEMA WTC Report: Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC_apndxA.htm
Appendix B of the FEMA WTC Report: Structural Steel and Steel Connections.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC_apndxB.htm
Appendix D of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC Steel Data Collection.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC_apndxD.htm
INDEX to other 'Guardian' articles...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/index.htm
*************
As well, (if you are just looking for some brief cursory information) Hoffman has some here... with other links from this page...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
Hope that helps...
QUOTE (metamars+)
As far as calculating, from first principles, what the exact proportions are at IR frequencies, I won't be doing that anytime soon. I would be happy to look it up without investing a lot of time (already tried that), and even happier if somebody else looked it up for me. Do you have ready access to this data? Anybody else?
I have several steel pans in my kitchen that get quite hot when exposed to flames on my gas stove. They don't seem to reflect much of the heat, and this seems to be a general property of steel, being as how building engineers think putting insulation on structural steel is such a good idea.
adoucette, Apparently the only way they can win this debate is by attacking people. And after the person whos attacked defends themselves they get banned. I'm going to have to be creative now. Heh!
It's sad day when liberals turn on each other like the worse of the neo-cons. These sum are no differnet than Bush when it comes right down to it. Bush also keeps descent down. But like a good liberal I'm going to fight your back.
It's sad day when liberals turn on each other like the worse of the neo-cons. These sum are no differnet than Bush when it comes right down to it. Bush also keeps descent down. But like a good liberal I'm going to fight your back.
QUOTE
Originally posted by metamars
{Foxx}:
You have made a careful study of the buildings' construction details, and can speak to that. I believe our thinking should be along the lines of essays, not merely a longish forum post, which may ramble off in different directions. Think of the articles that are quoted on 911blogger.com, and you begin to get the idea. Your subject would at least summarize the true building characteristics, as best we know them, and the logical inconsistencies in the NIST, plus popular "myths" propagated by the other side that you have debunked.
{Foxx}:
You have made a careful study of the buildings' construction details, and can speak to that. I believe our thinking should be along the lines of essays, not merely a longish forum post, which may ramble off in different directions. Think of the articles that are quoted on 911blogger.com, and you begin to get the idea. Your subject would at least summarize the true building characteristics, as best we know them, and the logical inconsistencies in the NIST, plus popular "myths" propagated by the other side that you have debunked.
Hi metamars, I actually have been working on putting together one for some time. The amount of research needed is huge. I couldn't begin to calculate the hours I have put into this project. The search for accurate details of the WTC towers is a long and frustrating one. I wasn't studying building constructions in general prior to 2001 ... even though I have worked with architects as far back as 1976 designing and fabricating a number of building structures with reinforced composites.
I would dearly love to get ahold of the actual WTC blueprints.
Having had a lot of experience reading blueprints myself, these could answer quickly many questions that I have about the actual construction of the towers... not to mention putting to rest many myths and obfuscations which have been fostered on the public.
As I understand it there was a massive amount of engineering and construction details on the towers PRE-2001, but unfortunately the web has been swept pretty clean of those articles and information.
Apparently NIST was finally able (after much pressure) to get ahold of the actual blueprints, and although they provide tantalizing bits & pieces of info in their reports, it's akin to offering a starving man 1 grape from a whole grapevine. Much of what I find, just immediately leads to a dozen other questions I have... entirely frustrating!
Gordon ... as to your query below...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by metamars {Foxx}: You have made a careful study of the buildings' construction details, and can speak to that. I believe our thinking should be along the lines of essays, not merely a longish forum post, which may ramble off in different directions. Think of the articles that are quoted on 911blogger.com, and you begin to get the idea. Your subject would at least summarize the true building characteristics, as best we know them, and the logical inconsistencies in the NIST, plus popular "myths" propagated by the other side that you have debunked. |
Hi metamars, I actually have been working on putting together one for some time. The amount of research needed is huge. I couldn't begin to calculate the hours I have put into this project. The search for accurate details of the WTC towers is a long and frustrating one. I wasn't studying building constructions in general prior to 2001 ... even though I have worked with architects as far back as 1976 designing and fabricating a number of building structures with reinforced composites.
I would dearly love to get ahold of the actual WTC blueprints.
Having had a lot of experience reading blueprints myself, these could answer quickly many questions that I have about the actual construction of the towers... not to mention putting to rest many myths and obfuscations which have been fostered on the public.
As I understand it there was a massive amount of engineering and construction details on the towers PRE-2001, but unfortunately the web has been swept pretty clean of those articles and information.
Apparently NIST was finally able (after much pressure) to get ahold of the actual blueprints, and although they provide tantalizing bits & pieces of info in their reports, it's akin to offering a starving man 1 grape from a whole grapevine. Much of what I find, just immediately leads to a dozen other questions I have... entirely frustrating!
Gordon ... as to your query below...
I would like to have as much info as possible of the various versions of tower design detail, so if anyone can provide links, I would be grateful. I have a few bits and bobs, but don't worry about duplication.
As I said above, there is not a great deal available on the actual design and construction details. However, even though for the most part the FEMA reports were a JOKE, you can find some good engineering design snippets in their reports. ( Best to just take the ACTUAL FACTS contained in those reports and ignore their extrapolations of what those details mean). I have listed the FEMA reports below.
Soon after the FEMA reports came out there was an anonymous web entity (often referred to as the Guardian who produced the first real debunking of the FEMA Fairy Tale.
He produced a website called 'Guardian/Nerdcities'.
For a time he was a prolific writer and exposer of FEMA... VERY VOCAL... a REAL Thorn-in-the-side to the 'official story'. He was TOO vocal to just voluntarily suddenly go silent. However, he has. Speculation is that he must now be dead.
He CERTAINLY MUST have had some inside knowledge of the construction of the towers, because he was revealing things which (at the time) were completely unknown to the general public regarding the construction details...this, at a time when (seemingly) the mass media --- including NOVA & MIT whiz Thomas Eagar --- were doing everything in their power to hide the construction details of the central core construction.
( http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled001.html )
The 'Guardian/Nerdcities' website has now been cached at Hoffmans 9/11 Research website as a public service.
This collection of articles by the Guardian 'deepthroat' is really the most extensive collection of articles on the towers construction that I have been able to find. The collection of Engineering Report articles is excellent.
Evidence of Explosives in the World Trade Center Towers collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosions.htm
Why did the World Trade Center Towers Fall? A Review of Thomas Eagar's (of MIT) Article.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/nova.htm
Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. A Review of Charles Clifton's Article.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/clifton.htm
The Jet Fuel; How hot did it heat the World Trade Center?
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/how-hot.htm
Proof the Twin Towers were Deliberately Demolished.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/proof.htm
The FEMA Report into the World Trade Center 7 Collapse is a Total Joke.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC7-short.htm
Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel: The World Trade Center.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/godfrey.htm
Some Articles from Engineering News Record. ...{EXCELLENT}
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
Comments on the World Trade Center Demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-demolition.htm
Microsoft Software used to simulate the crash of a Boeing 747 into the World Trade Center.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...c-microsoft.htm
University of California, Berkeley Professor, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl Testifies.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...astaneh-wtc.htm
The World Trade Center 7 Explosion Myth.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...e-explosion.htm
The World Trade Center Towers collapse as an Enormous Insurance Scam
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...urance-scam.htm
What went wrong with the investigation? By Eric Hufschmid (with comment).
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...Questions_1.htm
Sixty State Street and the World Trade Center towers: A Comparison.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...onstruction.htm
In addition the 'Guardian' transcribed the full FEMA report to html format for ease of access...(These usually have added notes and explainations added in red by 'Guardian' to the documents)...
Table Of Contents for the FEMA World Trade Center Report.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_toc.htm
Chapter 1 of the FEMA WTC Report: Introduction (with comment).
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch1.htm
Chapter 2 of the FEMA WTC Report: The Twin Towers (with comment).
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch2.htm
Chapter 3 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC 3.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch3.htm
Chapter 4 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC 4, 5, and 6.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch4.htm
Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: World Trade Center Seven (with comment).
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch5.htm
Chapter 6 of the FEMA WTC Report: Bankers Trust Building.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch6.htm
Chapter 7 of the FEMA WTC Report: Peripheral Buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch7.htm
Appendix A of the FEMA WTC Report: Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC_apndxA.htm
Appendix B of the FEMA WTC Report: Structural Steel and Steel Connections.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC_apndxB.htm
Appendix D of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC Steel Data Collection.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC_apndxD.htm
INDEX to other 'Guardian' articles...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/index.htm
*************
As well, (if you are just looking for some brief cursory information) Hoffman has some here... with other links from this page...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
Hope that helps...
NOTE: RE: the list of links above...
You cannot just copy/paste the above list because the forum abbreviates longer links, you need to click on the ones you want to save... or go to the Index link near the bottom of the list and save that page.
You cannot just copy/paste the above list because the forum abbreviates longer links, you need to click on the ones you want to save... or go to the Index link near the bottom of the list and save that page.
The real story...
The now infamous quote:
"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Now look at this...
USA Today graphic
South tower is WTC 2. Proof on page 4 below
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
As you can see the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower was not damaged as much because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it. Also, the 78th floor damage was caused by one of the wing tips. So it’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?
Pull means “PULL” teams out…
Here is the interview which I'm sure you know about...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
"Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...igro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt
What we have for sure...
Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
It means "PULL" the teams out!
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
http://msnbc.com/m/mp/dwvideo.asp?v=n_banf...sevenwtc_010911
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, "there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13."[Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, "A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side." Captain Chris Boyle recalls, "On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors."[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
That alone should end this debate. The fire dept didn't have orders for on high. So that leaves the fire dept lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.
So are they lying?
9/11 conspiracy sites are being selective with the text they post. This alone should tell you they’re lying. I know a president who is also as selective when talking about evidence for WMD.
Towers did not all at free fall speeds…
Look at the larger section of column on the other side of the building? The one with a trail coming from the cloud?
Now look at the cloud in the same spot on this picture taken just before.
Note the photo was taken from around the same spot. You can tell by the other tower. Also note on the bottom shot the beam isn't there and in the one above it's there with a tell tail trail coming from the cloud. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
And yet the 9/11 sites say
"On 9/11, by coincidence, three such buildings collapsed in ten to fifteen seconds, almost freefall speed. In other words, if you dropped a brick from the top of the World Trade Center it would have taken about that time to hit the ground."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html
This is dishonest.
They say a few people in the desert couldn't have carried out the 9/11 attacks. Never mind how raciest it is to suggest 20 or so arabs aren't smart enough to fly planes and keep a secret... The fact is the leader of this plot is the perfect one to carry it out. America thought him smart enough to hold back the Russia. But what makes him especially perfect for the attacks is his education and family back ground. His father was the biggest Saudi Arabian construction contractor and Osama himself earned a degree in civil engineering from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah in 1979. Why WOULDN'T he be the perfect person to pull this off...
Who would Rove, and co like you to believe 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...
-Bush, who failed at everything he ever did. He has one of the worse approval ratings of any president rivaling only Nixon during Watergate. Yet all the people below are helping him in one way or another...
-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 gag a 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...
CTers bring up an article in Fire House mag which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. They twist the articles context to make it seem like the fire fighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...TICLE_ID=131225
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...TICLE_ID=130026
-The courts for imposing a gag rule [SEE above]
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...
-The NYC port Authority who lost personel. Motive?
-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
-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
-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". In fact the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history.
-Pataki because he sold steel to from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.
-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to china before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the fire fighters.
-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.
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. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd...
The absurdity of suggesting someone would need to fly airplanes into two buildings AND blow them up is in itself stupid. Could you imagine the meeting?...
Government: We want to cause a tragedy so great the American people will blindly follow us into war... What do you think gentlemen...
Accomplice #1: Well, the Towers are a perfect choice.. It's been bombed before. We can just blame Osama again. We've been priming the American people by having him blow up our warships and our buildings in other countries.
Government: Yeah, good idea! How will we do that?
Accomplice #1: We can hire Osama to get some of his friends to fly planes into it!
Accomplice #2: Wait... I have a better idea, We can BOMB the buildings!
Accomplice #1: Well, that means placing enough bombs into the 110 story building. That's going to take a lot of man power and risk us being uncovered...
Accomplice #2: Yeah but that way your sure to knock it down. Besides, Maybe the hijackers wont make it to the target. Maybe they'll be uncovered!
Accomplice #1 But you don't need to knock it down, all you need is the horrific sight of the planes hitting the buildings. People will get the message. It's an attack on American soil. We'll also have people like the blind sheik to cover for us. We'll even put a guy on a train with evidence.
Your plan isn't perfect either you know. Do I have to remind you of Operation Towel Pop? We already tried to embarrass Clinton by knocking it down and failed.
Accomplice #2: Yeah, our bay of pigs, but I say the only way they can get the message is if we knock it down.
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Government: Gentlemen, gentlemen... Please... What the hell, we'll just do both!
How do we do that? I mean how do you keep explosions from showing up on TV? We're going to have to investigate this at some point. How do we cover up the seen?
Accomplice #2: But why not just knock it dow...
Government: I've made my decision. continue...
Accomplice #2: OK.. We install charges on every floor so that after the planes hit, we blow each floor under the crash floor one by one, very fast to simulate pancaking. We'll let the building burn a while just for effect. This will also give time for the trusses to sag making it LOOK like a fire caused the building to fall.
Accomplice #1: Nice touch...
Accomplice #2: Why, thank you.
...We'll set a charge off in the middle of the building AFTER the top is on it's way down so everyone thinks the puffs of debris coming from the windows are from the tremendous hypodermic needle like pressure blowing debris from the weakest point in the building.
Government: What about the sound of explosions? Isn't that a dead giveaway?
Accomplice #2: No problem, We'll just let them think it's normal electrical explosions like transformers blowing up or the initial concrete and Steel and floors hitting the floors below.
Accomplice #1: Yeah, it could also be the steel columns snapping like twigs from the tremendous weight of the floors above... Don't worry, we have disinformation specialists in Key internet forums.
Government: WOW, You guys think of everything.. What about Building 7? Can we take that out at the same time?
Accomplice #1: We wont be able to fly plans into it, that's for sure...
Accomplice #2: Leave it to me. If we set off the explosions just right we can have one of the towers hit Building 7 missing the two next to it. After that we can set fires on the bottom floors and let it burn for a while, you know, to make it look possible for a normal collapse. I'll call my agent in the fire department to get everyone out before we blow it. I'll figure a way to make the floors look buckled for effect as well.
Government: Amassing... I also want to take out the pentagon. Any suggestions?
Accomplice #1: What we'll do is hijack a plane just for effect then fire a missile at the pentagon. A bunker buster.
Government: But what about the people on the plane?
Accomplice #1: We'll land the plane in area 51 then shoot them all.
Government: Why not use the plane instead of the missile? That way you take care of all the evidence at the same time... People on the highway can also see the planes hit. If you use a missile there's going to be a lot of witnesses who saw a missile and not a plan.
Accomplice #1: err... ah, Don't worry about these small details. I have an under cover op in the DC police department who will take the names down and shot them all.
Government: How are you going to get all the people involved in this? Bush isn't exactly loved you know..
Don't worry, psych-ops will take care of the brainwashing of the American people. As for the media, we control the left and the right!
Government: GREAT! Nice work all! Lets make the target date Sept 11 2001.
As Randi Rhodes would say "Yeah, I believe that, I'm there!"
There were a lot of first for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had it's fire proofing removed from it's trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had 1/4th to 1/3rd of it's steel beams which hold lateral load sheared off by a 757. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had 1/4 to 1/3rd of it's vertical load bearing beams in it's core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with it's bottom floors on fire. Not the Madrid or Windsor tower fires had almost 40 stories of load on it's supports after being hit by another building which left a 18 story gash. Both lost I-beams from the heat. Windsors central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever lost a portion of load bearing support from the impact of another building while fires raging and lowering the load specs of all the bottom floor supports.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.
I’m going to use the same logic (No other high rise fire caused a collapse so it couldn’t have happened on 911) to prove the towers came down from fire…
Example:
This picture proves it was a normal collapse because it's IMPOSSIBLE for a bomb to make a piece of steel glow red for 6 weeks.
NEVER in the HISTORY of controlled demolition has a piece of steel glowed hot red 6 weeks after it exploded.
Not even a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION keeps steel glowing red for 6 weeks.
PROOF!
Not even smoke!
The administration said Saddam didn't have WMD until a day or two after the attack. If 9/11 was planned why didn't they prime the American people by spreading one more lie saying he had them? Doesn't make sense.
I'm going to say this so even a two year old can understand.
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, [note I said :Almost. No real evidence exist that it fell at free fall or faster. An Internet video is not evidence.] not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What they want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter.
__________________________
They're saying these clowns planned the largest murder in US history???
__________________________
This is the kind of what sickens me. These people take fireman’s quotes out of context to sucker people like Guest:
But if you read on...
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
Do TRANSFORMERS make A high-pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new twist.
_____________________________________
If the upper floor sag it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor. Now the beams that are left from the impact are pulled in more than the beams above or below it. Being made of STRIPS of beams and not one solid steel wall, the beams need only to move far enough out of the way to let the beams above slide around the beams below it. The beams above and intact have the full weight of all the "Stories" above which are connected to it. Everything above rips apart everything below. In other words the beams above are no longer square with the beams below.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Start at page 36. You can SEE photographic evidence the building was pulled in. Not just one floor but across many.
It sure as hell isn't being pushed out.
Note I use unbiased web sites. That or www.construction.com is also in on the conspiracy...
Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. Now if you think a bomb blew up the building you have to explain how a bomb pulled in the wall well before building 2 fell...
Note there are also many factors the NIST considered. You keep pulling one factor out at a time and say it couldn't have happened that way. Well maybe it couldn't have if only that ONE factor was in play.
Starting with the moment the plane hit survivors said the doors wouldn't open because the building was so out of alignment. The impacts alone BENT THE 110 STORY BUILDINGS. That building was MADE to sway. I grew up in NY and have been to that building many times. When the wind was strong you could FEEL the building sway. I can't imagine an impact that would cause the building to sway enough to knock it out of center. A humanly unimaginable energy. That alone should weaken the building. Once you start to pile on the fire, unique construction, sagging trusses, shifted load distribution, hell, their computer model even took the wind shifting into account...
But if you read on...
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
Do TRANSFORMERS make A high-pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new twist.
_____________________________________
If the upper floor sag it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor. Now the beams that are left from the impact are pulled in more than the beams above or below it. Being made of STRIPS of beams and not one solid steel wall, the beams need only to move far enough out of the way to let the beams above slide around the beams below it. The beams above and intact have the full weight of all the "Stories" above which are connected to it. Everything above rips apart everything below. In other words the beams above are no longer square with the beams below.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Start at page 36. You can SEE photographic evidence the building was pulled in. Not just one floor but across many.
It sure as hell isn't being pushed out.
Note I use unbiased web sites. That or www.construction.com is also in on the conspiracy...
Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. Now if you think a bomb blew up the building you have to explain how a bomb pulled in the wall well before building 2 fell...
Note there are also many factors the NIST considered. You keep pulling one factor out at a time and say it couldn't have happened that way. Well maybe it couldn't have if only that ONE factor was in play.
Starting with the moment the plane hit survivors said the doors wouldn't open because the building was so out of alignment. The impacts alone BENT THE 110 STORY BUILDINGS. That building was MADE to sway. I grew up in NY and have been to that building many times. When the wind was strong you could FEEL the building sway. I can't imagine an impact that would cause the building to sway enough to knock it out of center. A humanly unimaginable energy. That alone should weaken the building. Once you start to pile on the fire, unique construction, sagging trusses, shifted load distribution, hell, their computer model even took the wind shifting into account...
It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html
Pod People
"Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that [Edit: insert conspiracy here].
This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. The government shills are trying to conceal real news stories such as [Edit: 9/11 was a convenient excuse to invade Iraq as the Downing Street Memo shows, Spying on Americans, the Iraq War, Torturegate, Katrina response, and so on] So, we get hoax stories poured onto the net by government propagandists, to be used by the media to attack the credibility of anyone who dares [edit: believe] the official story [edit: and divert attention from the real crimes].
At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly showing the impact [edit: and collapse], and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky [edit: liberal] Internet web sites" and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the web."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html
Learn from your own people.
Picture this, Cut a box in the middle of some large pancakes to represent the floors, then put a box made of vertical sticks tied together yet far enough apart to simulate the separation of the core columns. Tie it together with string. Remember that the core has the elevator shafts and other things which go straight down to the mechanical level. At the bottom of the pancakes put small flags made of tissue paper. At each pancake level put more said flags in the core. Now drop the pancakes.
The falling pancakes are are going to push all the air/flags that were under the pancake every which way it can. Out to the edge (What you see pushing the heavy columns out. Note the columns fall further away the lower it gets to ground level. This would be expected as the collapse picks up speed and energy as it adds weight. Or are they using heavier and heavier explosives on the way down? Why would they do that?) and YES, in to the core/sticks. It's going to push it in EVERY direction. If you also simulate the falling debris in the core and solids like elevators, elevator machinery and core landings and stairways its not unreasonable to expect a plunger effect forcing as much air and debris with as much speed and pressure as it can down the core. As I said, the place you see this "Nub" is where the mechanical levels are. The debris of a high-rise office is squashing everything on the remaining levels. Elevators might be falling at free fall speed. The difference is the core can relieve more pressure than the perimeter columns which have glass and perimeter columns. So it takes the path of least resistance.
It's also possible (As one fireman said) it was electrical explosions like transformers blowing up. You would expect to see transformers on mechanical levels. The point is the nub is inconclusive. The public has very little information on what was exactly in the mechanical levels and it's perimeter walls.
Look at this...
http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/demolition/
At the middle of the page is a flash slow motion video of one of those "Nubs". If you look at it frame by frame you'll see first the building is falling already. Then you'll see a wisp of air coming from the area where the "nub" is. As the building falls the wisp slowly becomes a large plume. This is NOT an explosion. An explosion doesn't start out slow then progress.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Statement after statement doesn't make it so. Saying over and over again "the buildings fall is impossible" doesn't make it so. And in the last 175 pages of this thread that's all people have.
Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.
Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.
The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.
In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.
Origins and the experiment
In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns, then removing them from a board, then putting them back in, and so forth. Subjects rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave.
However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the subject was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some subjects were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks, those in the $1 group showed a much greater propensity to embellish in favor of the experiment when asked to lie about the tasks. Experimenters theorized that when paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, which the experimenters claim explains their lesser willingness to lie favoring the tasks in the experiment.
The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by literally changing their attitude in a process akin to autobrainwashing in order really to believe that they found the tasks enjoyable.
Put simply, the experimenters concluded that human beings, when asked to lie without being given sufficient justification, will convince themselves that the lie they are asked to tell is the truth. Only when sufficient justification is given, researchers speculated, are human beings able to resist having their mind instantly reprogrammed by any request that they lie.
Festinger further tested his theory on observations of counterintuitive belief persistence of most members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
I figured out I misplaced a zero, but the sum of the kinetic energy is still pretty impressive. The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ, not 6 TJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquify a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents; having screwed up once, I ain’t gonna flap my pie hole and give numbers until I’m done calculatin that, tho.
Bingo, you should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newb and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totalling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).
Truth,
What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. I should prolly have published it here long before now; this site deserves a lot more of me than physorg does, for sure. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.
A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. You’re right, but it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.
_While it’s true that a 6.2 TJ bomb would have blown the *** out of several blocks, _ My bad, should be a 600GJ bomb- and it’s not several blocks, it’s about ten blocks in any direction. I had a link to a site with a damage calculator you could test on various cities, it was from the anti-nuclear-weapon-scientists-coalition-I-always-forget-the-name-of. Lemme see if I can hunt it up for you.
the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theorys (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that head STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”
All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. The other half that you are overlooking is that THE GROUND was pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. So, this force you are estimating was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. No, although you are pedantically correct insofar as the fact that the STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because you are not technically correct, it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.
Kinetic energy is not perfectly conserved as heat… in fact, it is mostly released as seismic waves and sound waves. This is actually untrue, and there is an article on seismic waves that says so, I believe on 9/11 Research; you might have misinterpreted this article. You need to prove this claim if you’re going to make it; it’s hopeless, because it’s not how it works when you hit a piece of steel, concrete, or wood for that matter with a hammer, but go ahead and try. You’ll need a credible source, someone who actually has a degree IN PHYSICS, or a college textbook (this is a little advanced for highschool physics, unless it’s advanced considerably since back in the day), or something like that.
Don’t argue with Snark on biology, and don’t argue with Da Schneib on physics- he’s got a degree in bio and is currently teaching it, and I’ve been playing with physics for prolly longer than you been alive. I’m not insultin you, just sayin. I’d recommend against arguing with josh or me on computer science as well, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
My question is: How did you account for other forms of energy release besides heat? Please provide specifics. Seismic waves, sound waves, the energy absorbed by the collapsing structure, debris shot upwards. The total energy of all of those put together is miniscule; the seismic waves are the greatest portion, and are well under 0.01% of the total (that’s 1/10,000 in plain ratios, or 1/100 of a percent). Have a look at that paper I referred to; it’s a pretty easy search.
Now, for the program:
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
#!/usr/bin/perl
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for 2 WTC)
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step
$p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far
$a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant)
$t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories)
$mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section
$rfc = 110 – $fc;# initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors
while($rfc > 0) {
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula
print(“Impact velocity for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v2, “n”);
$p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact
print(“Impulse delivered for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $p, “n”);
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact
print(“Impact kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1, “n”);
$fc++; # increment falling floor count
$mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print(“Velocity after impact for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v3, “n”);
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact
print(“Remaining kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke2, “n”);
$de += $ke1 – $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total
print(“The kinetic energy dissipated for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1 – $ke2, ”
n”);
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula
print(“The time spent collapsing story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $t1, “n”);
$t += $t1; # add step time to running total
$rfc—; # decrement remaining floor count
}
print(“The total time was ”, $t, “n”);
print(“The total energy dissipated during the collapse was ”, $de, “n”);
print(“The remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse was ”, $ke2, “n”
);
**END PROGRAM**
It’s a perl, you can download perl for just about anything from www.perl.org or somewhere they point. If you’re going to get involved in CS, somewhere you’re going to encounter perl, and now’s as good a time to learn it as any. I highly recommend the O’Reilly Press perl book which happens to be by the inventors of the language. Just so you can muddle your way through and derive the equations from the code above, * is multiplication, ** is raising to a power (and don’t forget that a fractional power is a root; so **0.5 is the square-root operation). The rest of the symbols are obvious, and the parentheses work the same way as they do in standard math notation. You should be aware that the single = in most languages simply ASSIGNS the value of what’s on the right to the thing on the left; usually, you’re required to put a single variable on the left of an =. The double == TESTS whether one value is equal to another, returning 1 or TRUE if it is, and 0 or FALSE if it is not.
http://cortez.gnn.tv/blogs/11271/9_11_WTC_...etal_Pics_Video
At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer. - Jerry Russell
Who would ever mistake me for "James Bond"?
By Jerry Russell
On March 31, 2002 (just in time for April Fool's Day) I posted an article to the Usenet entitled "Proof of controlled demolition at the WTC". In fact I indulged in some rather egregious cross-posting, in order to attract attention to my theory. I was sincerely convinced at the time that my arguments were correct, but as it turned out, the April Fool's joke was on me.
The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it. This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct.
My article also pointed out that it is historically unprecedented for airplane strikes and/or fires to destroy large steel-frame structures. My opinion is that this should be good reason to be suspicious about the official story (and I'm still suspicious at least to some extent), but many readers pointed out that there is always a first time for everything. They note that in many ways, the events of 9-11 were indeed historically unprecedented, so it was hardly fair of me to use precedent as if it were substantial evidence.
At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer.
But after all, it was only a Usenet post. I bravely waded through all the flames and insults in the many responses, and found that there was a residual level of useful feedback in the discussion. As soon as I understood my mistake, I posted a retraction.
However, some people apparently liked my April Fool's article, exactly as it first appeared. It has developed a life of its own. It has been posted to Mark Elsis' Attack On America site. It appeared on Rense.com one day, but they were gracious enough to take it down at my request. It's gone out in private mailing lists, and been re-posted to the Usenet by others. I get a more or less continuous stream of e-mail about it. Every time I hear from someone, I explain and apologize for my mistakes in the article.
Now the article has appeared again, but I am no longer given credit (or blame) as the author of the piece. In its latest incarnation in the Delphi Associates Newsletter (vol. 4, issue #81), it was written by a mole from inside the MI6 British intelligence service, writing under the alias of "James Bond". Under its new authorship, the article has been posted again to the Usenet.
A reader of my web page alerted me to the situation, and he was also kind enough to send me a scan of the newsletter article, which appears here: page 1, page 2, page 3.
But the article as it is published in the Delphi Newsletter is not exactly in its original form. There are a few additions -- for example, a mystical reference to Nostradamus, and an approving discussion of the French "Hunt the Boeing" web page. I suppose I did a good enough job of discrediting myself and my ideas, but "James Bond" has been able to add to the general level of hilarity by bringing in these other questionable threads.
I've written to Sean David Morton of Delphi Associates to ask him how this could have happened and how he mistook my article for something by "James Bond". So far, I haven't heard from him...
Posted 5/21/2002
Update 6/9/2002: Mr. Morton did contact me, and we agreed that he would publish a follow-up letter from me, explaining the technical errors in the "James Bond" article.
http://www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm
If you ask me today: "Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?" I would say yes.
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Where does it say the administration blew up the WTC? Where does it say "The administration knew the time, place and date of the attack and did nothing"? Where does it say the administration had a conspiracy to destroy the WTC?
In the same poll only 28% of the people knew the number of the third building that fell!
Then theirs the question of SO WHAT. What if 50% of the people thought Bush did. it. Not long ago a poll was done asking if Saddam had WMD. Remember that poll? What was it, 40% or something like that thought he had it. Using your logic if the number is high then we should act.
Here's the kicker... If you "follow the money" you find the poll was paid for by 911truth.org. Using your logic this poll is propaganda for the 9/11 conspiracy sites.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that the poll was worded in such a way as to get people like me, who don't see a conspiracy to blow up the WTC to vote in agreement.
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI shielding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequencies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frequencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absorption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
Most materials absorb more than one band of EM. Water absorbs wavelengths near 0.4 cm very well and also wavelengths of 900 nm.
ALL matter emits IR, anything that is above absolute zero emits IR. Absorption and reflectivity are different.
IIRC the absorption of IR depends on several factors including, wavelength(frequency) of the IR and the temperature of the object the IR is impinging on.
I will look up what it says in the "Encyclopedia of Physics" vol. 2 . I have it somewhere in the basement, just gotta find it.
If you have access to "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics "
It very well might have some of the info you are looking for. It is online but only by paid subscription.
The now infamous quote:
"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Now look at this...
USA Today graphic
South tower is WTC 2. Proof on page 4 below
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
As you can see the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower was not damaged as much because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it. Also, the 78th floor damage was caused by one of the wing tips. So it’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?
Pull means “PULL” teams out…
Here is the interview which I'm sure you know about...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
"Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...igro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt
What we have for sure...
Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
It means "PULL" the teams out!
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
http://msnbc.com/m/mp/dwvideo.asp?v=n_banf...sevenwtc_010911
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, "there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13."[Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, "A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side." Captain Chris Boyle recalls, "On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors."[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
That alone should end this debate. The fire dept didn't have orders for on high. So that leaves the fire dept lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.
So are they lying?
9/11 conspiracy sites are being selective with the text they post. This alone should tell you they’re lying. I know a president who is also as selective when talking about evidence for WMD.
Towers did not all at free fall speeds…
Look at the larger section of column on the other side of the building? The one with a trail coming from the cloud?
Now look at the cloud in the same spot on this picture taken just before.
Note the photo was taken from around the same spot. You can tell by the other tower. Also note on the bottom shot the beam isn't there and in the one above it's there with a tell tail trail coming from the cloud. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
And yet the 9/11 sites say
"On 9/11, by coincidence, three such buildings collapsed in ten to fifteen seconds, almost freefall speed. In other words, if you dropped a brick from the top of the World Trade Center it would have taken about that time to hit the ground."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html
This is dishonest.
They say a few people in the desert couldn't have carried out the 9/11 attacks. Never mind how raciest it is to suggest 20 or so arabs aren't smart enough to fly planes and keep a secret... The fact is the leader of this plot is the perfect one to carry it out. America thought him smart enough to hold back the Russia. But what makes him especially perfect for the attacks is his education and family back ground. His father was the biggest Saudi Arabian construction contractor and Osama himself earned a degree in civil engineering from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah in 1979. Why WOULDN'T he be the perfect person to pull this off...
Who would Rove, and co like you to believe 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...
-Bush, who failed at everything he ever did. He has one of the worse approval ratings of any president rivaling only Nixon during Watergate. Yet all the people below are helping him in one way or another...
-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 gag a 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...
CTers bring up an article in Fire House mag which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. They twist the articles context to make it seem like the fire fighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...TICLE_ID=131225
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...TICLE_ID=130026
-The courts for imposing a gag rule [SEE above]
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...
-The NYC port Authority who lost personel. Motive?
-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
-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
-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". In fact the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history.
-Pataki because he sold steel to from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.
-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to china before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the fire fighters.
-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.
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. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd...
The absurdity of suggesting someone would need to fly airplanes into two buildings AND blow them up is in itself stupid. Could you imagine the meeting?...
Government: We want to cause a tragedy so great the American people will blindly follow us into war... What do you think gentlemen...
Accomplice #1: Well, the Towers are a perfect choice.. It's been bombed before. We can just blame Osama again. We've been priming the American people by having him blow up our warships and our buildings in other countries.
Government: Yeah, good idea! How will we do that?
Accomplice #1: We can hire Osama to get some of his friends to fly planes into it!
Accomplice #2: Wait... I have a better idea, We can BOMB the buildings!
Accomplice #1: Well, that means placing enough bombs into the 110 story building. That's going to take a lot of man power and risk us being uncovered...
Accomplice #2: Yeah but that way your sure to knock it down. Besides, Maybe the hijackers wont make it to the target. Maybe they'll be uncovered!
Accomplice #1 But you don't need to knock it down, all you need is the horrific sight of the planes hitting the buildings. People will get the message. It's an attack on American soil. We'll also have people like the blind sheik to cover for us. We'll even put a guy on a train with evidence.
Your plan isn't perfect either you know. Do I have to remind you of Operation Towel Pop? We already tried to embarrass Clinton by knocking it down and failed.
Accomplice #2: Yeah, our bay of pigs, but I say the only way they can get the message is if we knock it down.
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Government: Gentlemen, gentlemen... Please... What the hell, we'll just do both!
How do we do that? I mean how do you keep explosions from showing up on TV? We're going to have to investigate this at some point. How do we cover up the seen?Accomplice #2: But why not just knock it dow...
Government: I've made my decision. continue...
Accomplice #2: OK.. We install charges on every floor so that after the planes hit, we blow each floor under the crash floor one by one, very fast to simulate pancaking. We'll let the building burn a while just for effect. This will also give time for the trusses to sag making it LOOK like a fire caused the building to fall.
Accomplice #1: Nice touch...
Accomplice #2: Why, thank you.
...We'll set a charge off in the middle of the building AFTER the top is on it's way down so everyone thinks the puffs of debris coming from the windows are from the tremendous hypodermic needle like pressure blowing debris from the weakest point in the building.Government: What about the sound of explosions? Isn't that a dead giveaway?
Accomplice #2: No problem, We'll just let them think it's normal electrical explosions like transformers blowing up or the initial concrete and Steel and floors hitting the floors below.
Accomplice #1: Yeah, it could also be the steel columns snapping like twigs from the tremendous weight of the floors above... Don't worry, we have disinformation specialists in Key internet forums.
Government: WOW, You guys think of everything.. What about Building 7? Can we take that out at the same time?
Accomplice #1: We wont be able to fly plans into it, that's for sure...
Accomplice #2: Leave it to me. If we set off the explosions just right we can have one of the towers hit Building 7 missing the two next to it. After that we can set fires on the bottom floors and let it burn for a while, you know, to make it look possible for a normal collapse. I'll call my agent in the fire department to get everyone out before we blow it. I'll figure a way to make the floors look buckled for effect as well.
Government: Amassing... I also want to take out the pentagon. Any suggestions?
Accomplice #1: What we'll do is hijack a plane just for effect then fire a missile at the pentagon. A bunker buster.
Government: But what about the people on the plane?
Accomplice #1: We'll land the plane in area 51 then shoot them all.
Government: Why not use the plane instead of the missile? That way you take care of all the evidence at the same time... People on the highway can also see the planes hit. If you use a missile there's going to be a lot of witnesses who saw a missile and not a plan.
Accomplice #1: err... ah, Don't worry about these small details. I have an under cover op in the DC police department who will take the names down and shot them all.
Government: How are you going to get all the people involved in this? Bush isn't exactly loved you know..
Don't worry, psych-ops will take care of the brainwashing of the American people. As for the media, we control the left and the right!
Government: GREAT! Nice work all! Lets make the target date Sept 11 2001.
As Randi Rhodes would say "Yeah, I believe that, I'm there!"
There were a lot of first for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had it's fire proofing removed from it's trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had 1/4th to 1/3rd of it's steel beams which hold lateral load sheared off by a 757. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had 1/4 to 1/3rd of it's vertical load bearing beams in it's core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with it's bottom floors on fire. Not the Madrid or Windsor tower fires had almost 40 stories of load on it's supports after being hit by another building which left a 18 story gash. Both lost I-beams from the heat. Windsors central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever lost a portion of load bearing support from the impact of another building while fires raging and lowering the load specs of all the bottom floor supports.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.
I’m going to use the same logic (No other high rise fire caused a collapse so it couldn’t have happened on 911) to prove the towers came down from fire…
Example:
This picture proves it was a normal collapse because it's IMPOSSIBLE for a bomb to make a piece of steel glow red for 6 weeks.
NEVER in the HISTORY of controlled demolition has a piece of steel glowed hot red 6 weeks after it exploded.
Not even a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION keeps steel glowing red for 6 weeks.
PROOF!
Not even smoke!
The administration said Saddam didn't have WMD until a day or two after the attack. If 9/11 was planned why didn't they prime the American people by spreading one more lie saying he had them? Doesn't make sense.
I'm going to say this so even a two year old can understand.
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, [note I said :Almost. No real evidence exist that it fell at free fall or faster. An Internet video is not evidence.] not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What they want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter.
__________________________
They're saying these clowns planned the largest murder in US history???
__________________________
This is the kind of what sickens me. These people take fireman’s quotes out of context to sucker people like Guest:
QUOTE
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
But if you read on...
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
Do TRANSFORMERS make A high-pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new twist.
_____________________________________
If the upper floor sag it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor. Now the beams that are left from the impact are pulled in more than the beams above or below it. Being made of STRIPS of beams and not one solid steel wall, the beams need only to move far enough out of the way to let the beams above slide around the beams below it. The beams above and intact have the full weight of all the "Stories" above which are connected to it. Everything above rips apart everything below. In other words the beams above are no longer square with the beams below.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Start at page 36. You can SEE photographic evidence the building was pulled in. Not just one floor but across many.
It sure as hell isn't being pushed out.
Note I use unbiased web sites.
That or www.construction.com is also in on the conspiracy...Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. Now if you think a bomb blew up the building you have to explain how a bomb pulled in the wall well before building 2 fell...
Note there are also many factors the NIST considered. You keep pulling one factor out at a time and say it couldn't have happened that way. Well maybe it couldn't have if only that ONE factor was in play.
Starting with the moment the plane hit survivors said the doors wouldn't open because the building was so out of alignment. The impacts alone BENT THE 110 STORY BUILDINGS. That building was MADE to sway. I grew up in NY and have been to that building many times. When the wind was strong you could FEEL the building sway. I can't imagine an impact that would cause the building to sway enough to knock it out of center. A humanly unimaginable energy. That alone should weaken the building. Once you start to pile on the fire, unique construction, sagging trusses, shifted load distribution, hell, their computer model even took the wind shifting into account...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?” |
But if you read on...
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
Do TRANSFORMERS make A high-pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new twist.
_____________________________________
If the upper floor sag it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor. Now the beams that are left from the impact are pulled in more than the beams above or below it. Being made of STRIPS of beams and not one solid steel wall, the beams need only to move far enough out of the way to let the beams above slide around the beams below it. The beams above and intact have the full weight of all the "Stories" above which are connected to it. Everything above rips apart everything below. In other words the beams above are no longer square with the beams below.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Start at page 36. You can SEE photographic evidence the building was pulled in. Not just one floor but across many.
It sure as hell isn't being pushed out.
Note I use unbiased web sites.
That or www.construction.com is also in on the conspiracy...Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. Now if you think a bomb blew up the building you have to explain how a bomb pulled in the wall well before building 2 fell...
Note there are also many factors the NIST considered. You keep pulling one factor out at a time and say it couldn't have happened that way. Well maybe it couldn't have if only that ONE factor was in play.
Starting with the moment the plane hit survivors said the doors wouldn't open because the building was so out of alignment. The impacts alone BENT THE 110 STORY BUILDINGS. That building was MADE to sway. I grew up in NY and have been to that building many times. When the wind was strong you could FEEL the building sway. I can't imagine an impact that would cause the building to sway enough to knock it out of center. A humanly unimaginable energy. That alone should weaken the building. Once you start to pile on the fire, unique construction, sagging trusses, shifted load distribution, hell, their computer model even took the wind shifting into account...
It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html
Pod People
"Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that [Edit: insert conspiracy here].
This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. The government shills are trying to conceal real news stories such as [Edit: 9/11 was a convenient excuse to invade Iraq as the Downing Street Memo shows, Spying on Americans, the Iraq War, Torturegate, Katrina response, and so on] So, we get hoax stories poured onto the net by government propagandists, to be used by the media to attack the credibility of anyone who dares [edit: believe] the official story [edit: and divert attention from the real crimes].
At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly showing the impact [edit: and collapse], and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky [edit: liberal] Internet web sites" and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the web."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html
Learn from your own people.
Picture this, Cut a box in the middle of some large pancakes to represent the floors, then put a box made of vertical sticks tied together yet far enough apart to simulate the separation of the core columns. Tie it together with string. Remember that the core has the elevator shafts and other things which go straight down to the mechanical level. At the bottom of the pancakes put small flags made of tissue paper. At each pancake level put more said flags in the core. Now drop the pancakes.
The falling pancakes are are going to push all the air/flags that were under the pancake every which way it can. Out to the edge (What you see pushing the heavy columns out. Note the columns fall further away the lower it gets to ground level. This would be expected as the collapse picks up speed and energy as it adds weight. Or are they using heavier and heavier explosives on the way down? Why would they do that?) and YES, in to the core/sticks. It's going to push it in EVERY direction. If you also simulate the falling debris in the core and solids like elevators, elevator machinery and core landings and stairways its not unreasonable to expect a plunger effect forcing as much air and debris with as much speed and pressure as it can down the core. As I said, the place you see this "Nub" is where the mechanical levels are. The debris of a high-rise office is squashing everything on the remaining levels. Elevators might be falling at free fall speed. The difference is the core can relieve more pressure than the perimeter columns which have glass and perimeter columns. So it takes the path of least resistance.
It's also possible (As one fireman said) it was electrical explosions like transformers blowing up. You would expect to see transformers on mechanical levels. The point is the nub is inconclusive. The public has very little information on what was exactly in the mechanical levels and it's perimeter walls.
Look at this...
http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/demolition/
At the middle of the page is a flash slow motion video of one of those "Nubs". If you look at it frame by frame you'll see first the building is falling already. Then you'll see a wisp of air coming from the area where the "nub" is. As the building falls the wisp slowly becomes a large plume. This is NOT an explosion. An explosion doesn't start out slow then progress.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Statement after statement doesn't make it so. Saying over and over again "the buildings fall is impossible" doesn't make it so. And in the last 175 pages of this thread that's all people have.
Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.
Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.
The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.
In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.
Origins and the experiment
In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns, then removing them from a board, then putting them back in, and so forth. Subjects rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave.
However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the subject was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some subjects were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks, those in the $1 group showed a much greater propensity to embellish in favor of the experiment when asked to lie about the tasks. Experimenters theorized that when paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, which the experimenters claim explains their lesser willingness to lie favoring the tasks in the experiment.
The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by literally changing their attitude in a process akin to autobrainwashing in order really to believe that they found the tasks enjoyable.
Put simply, the experimenters concluded that human beings, when asked to lie without being given sufficient justification, will convince themselves that the lie they are asked to tell is the truth. Only when sufficient justification is given, researchers speculated, are human beings able to resist having their mind instantly reprogrammed by any request that they lie.
Festinger further tested his theory on observations of counterintuitive belief persistence of most members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
I figured out I misplaced a zero, but the sum of the kinetic energy is still pretty impressive. The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ, not 6 TJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquify a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents; having screwed up once, I ain’t gonna flap my pie hole and give numbers until I’m done calculatin that, tho.
Bingo, you should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newb and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totalling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).
Truth,
What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. I should prolly have published it here long before now; this site deserves a lot more of me than physorg does, for sure. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.
A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. You’re right, but it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.
_While it’s true that a 6.2 TJ bomb would have blown the *** out of several blocks, _ My bad, should be a 600GJ bomb- and it’s not several blocks, it’s about ten blocks in any direction. I had a link to a site with a damage calculator you could test on various cities, it was from the anti-nuclear-weapon-scientists-coalition-I-always-forget-the-name-of. Lemme see if I can hunt it up for you.
the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theorys (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that head STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”
All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. The other half that you are overlooking is that THE GROUND was pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. So, this force you are estimating was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. No, although you are pedantically correct insofar as the fact that the STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because you are not technically correct, it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.
Kinetic energy is not perfectly conserved as heat… in fact, it is mostly released as seismic waves and sound waves. This is actually untrue, and there is an article on seismic waves that says so, I believe on 9/11 Research; you might have misinterpreted this article. You need to prove this claim if you’re going to make it; it’s hopeless, because it’s not how it works when you hit a piece of steel, concrete, or wood for that matter with a hammer, but go ahead and try. You’ll need a credible source, someone who actually has a degree IN PHYSICS, or a college textbook (this is a little advanced for highschool physics, unless it’s advanced considerably since back in the day), or something like that.
Don’t argue with Snark on biology, and don’t argue with Da Schneib on physics- he’s got a degree in bio and is currently teaching it, and I’ve been playing with physics for prolly longer than you been alive. I’m not insultin you, just sayin. I’d recommend against arguing with josh or me on computer science as well, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
My question is: How did you account for other forms of energy release besides heat? Please provide specifics. Seismic waves, sound waves, the energy absorbed by the collapsing structure, debris shot upwards. The total energy of all of those put together is miniscule; the seismic waves are the greatest portion, and are well under 0.01% of the total (that’s 1/10,000 in plain ratios, or 1/100 of a percent). Have a look at that paper I referred to; it’s a pretty easy search.
Now, for the program:
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
#!/usr/bin/perl
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for 2 WTC)
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step
$p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far
$a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant)
$t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories)
$mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section
$rfc = 110 – $fc;# initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors
while($rfc > 0) {
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula
print(“Impact velocity for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v2, “n”);
$p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact
print(“Impulse delivered for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $p, “n”);
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact
print(“Impact kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1, “n”);
$fc++; # increment falling floor count
$mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print(“Velocity after impact for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v3, “n”);
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact
print(“Remaining kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke2, “n”);
$de += $ke1 – $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total
print(“The kinetic energy dissipated for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1 – $ke2, ”
n”);
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula
print(“The time spent collapsing story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $t1, “n”);
$t += $t1; # add step time to running total
$rfc—; # decrement remaining floor count
}
print(“The total time was ”, $t, “n”);
print(“The total energy dissipated during the collapse was ”, $de, “n”);
print(“The remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse was ”, $ke2, “n”
);
**END PROGRAM**
It’s a perl, you can download perl for just about anything from www.perl.org or somewhere they point. If you’re going to get involved in CS, somewhere you’re going to encounter perl, and now’s as good a time to learn it as any. I highly recommend the O’Reilly Press perl book which happens to be by the inventors of the language. Just so you can muddle your way through and derive the equations from the code above, * is multiplication, ** is raising to a power (and don’t forget that a fractional power is a root; so **0.5 is the square-root operation). The rest of the symbols are obvious, and the parentheses work the same way as they do in standard math notation. You should be aware that the single = in most languages simply ASSIGNS the value of what’s on the right to the thing on the left; usually, you’re required to put a single variable on the left of an =. The double == TESTS whether one value is equal to another, returning 1 or TRUE if it is, and 0 or FALSE if it is not.
http://cortez.gnn.tv/blogs/11271/9_11_WTC_...etal_Pics_Video
At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer. - Jerry Russell
Who would ever mistake me for "James Bond"?
By Jerry Russell
On March 31, 2002 (just in time for April Fool's Day) I posted an article to the Usenet entitled "Proof of controlled demolition at the WTC". In fact I indulged in some rather egregious cross-posting, in order to attract attention to my theory. I was sincerely convinced at the time that my arguments were correct, but as it turned out, the April Fool's joke was on me.
The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it. This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct.
My article also pointed out that it is historically unprecedented for airplane strikes and/or fires to destroy large steel-frame structures. My opinion is that this should be good reason to be suspicious about the official story (and I'm still suspicious at least to some extent), but many readers pointed out that there is always a first time for everything. They note that in many ways, the events of 9-11 were indeed historically unprecedented, so it was hardly fair of me to use precedent as if it were substantial evidence.
At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer.
But after all, it was only a Usenet post. I bravely waded through all the flames and insults in the many responses, and found that there was a residual level of useful feedback in the discussion. As soon as I understood my mistake, I posted a retraction.
However, some people apparently liked my April Fool's article, exactly as it first appeared. It has developed a life of its own. It has been posted to Mark Elsis' Attack On America site. It appeared on Rense.com one day, but they were gracious enough to take it down at my request. It's gone out in private mailing lists, and been re-posted to the Usenet by others. I get a more or less continuous stream of e-mail about it. Every time I hear from someone, I explain and apologize for my mistakes in the article.
Now the article has appeared again, but I am no longer given credit (or blame) as the author of the piece. In its latest incarnation in the Delphi Associates Newsletter (vol. 4, issue #81), it was written by a mole from inside the MI6 British intelligence service, writing under the alias of "James Bond". Under its new authorship, the article has been posted again to the Usenet.
A reader of my web page alerted me to the situation, and he was also kind enough to send me a scan of the newsletter article, which appears here: page 1, page 2, page 3.
But the article as it is published in the Delphi Newsletter is not exactly in its original form. There are a few additions -- for example, a mystical reference to Nostradamus, and an approving discussion of the French "Hunt the Boeing" web page. I suppose I did a good enough job of discrediting myself and my ideas, but "James Bond" has been able to add to the general level of hilarity by bringing in these other questionable threads.
I've written to Sean David Morton of Delphi Associates to ask him how this could have happened and how he mistook my article for something by "James Bond". So far, I haven't heard from him...
Posted 5/21/2002
Update 6/9/2002: Mr. Morton did contact me, and we agreed that he would publish a follow-up letter from me, explaining the technical errors in the "James Bond" article.
http://www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm
If you ask me today: "Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?" I would say yes.
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Where does it say the administration blew up the WTC? Where does it say "The administration knew the time, place and date of the attack and did nothing"? Where does it say the administration had a conspiracy to destroy the WTC?
In the same poll only 28% of the people knew the number of the third building that fell!
Then theirs the question of SO WHAT. What if 50% of the people thought Bush did. it. Not long ago a poll was done asking if Saddam had WMD. Remember that poll? What was it, 40% or something like that thought he had it. Using your logic if the number is high then we should act.
Here's the kicker... If you "follow the money" you find the poll was paid for by 911truth.org. Using your logic this poll is propaganda for the 9/11 conspiracy sites.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that the poll was worded in such a way as to get people like me, who don't see a conspiracy to blow up the WTC to vote in agreement.
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'm sorry I missed this. I came across it while doing a search.
It's not clear at all that these are core columns vs. outer columns. My best guess has always been that these are 'outer columns', because of what looked like the belts. AFAIK, there were no belts used for the core columns.
Most all the rest of your statements are merely popish denials of what anybody can clearly see and determine for themselves, and popish affirmations of what you claim is obvious, but is nothing of the sort. I'm referring specifically to:
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.
Before you can even talk about something being "CONCLUSIVE" evidence for something, you should at least make sure you characterize it correctly. Your arguments for declaring the spire from the core are what, exactly?
Please don't say that "clear as mud" picture which was posted recently. The shiny and mostly filled in facade is a further indication that we are looking at a piece of the exterior of a tower.
The second paragraph is, at this point anyway, meaningless for the same reason.
Ah, now we get to the third paragraph. This is a "two 'fer". You not only deny the visible evidence, CLEARLY and CONCLUSIVELY showing disintegration, but you claim that it supports a "pancake" theory!! Indeed, you claim that it "precisely" supports a pancake theory!
Your "observations" are at odds with what others can clearly see, and I believe that includes Gordon. Gordon at least had the humility to explain that he cannot explain the collapse of the spire, which is not just weird, but uber-weird.
Since you do not see what I see, please explain to me where exactly the TOP of the spire is at each 10th of a second from the onset of a collapse. Surely you don't believe that the center of mass of the spire could travel downwards faster than the speed of free fall. Recall that the the collapse, before I "lost sight of it", was more or less straight downwards. Thus, the downward velocity of the center of mass should equal the downward velocity of the top of the spire.
Together we should be able to determine for how many seconds the top of the spire should have been visible. If I then check your measurements, and look REALLY carefully, I should be able SEE the top of the spire, exactly where you also see it.
Of course, having studied the uber weird "collapse" of the spire, I'm quite confident that you cannot support your characterization of the spire's collapse AT ALL. But perhaps I've been hasty.
I invite you to prove your observations of the spire have any credibility, at all.
=============================
Just to refresh everybody's memory:
See
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/dustspire.gif
(You may have to install the Divx codec)
Observe:
at 13.4 sec. the spire is still vertical, but begins to bend
at 16.9 sec. it begins to collapse into it's footprint
by 17.8 it's clear that the steel is "vaporizing", i.e, the steel beam is becoming "particularized" (I imagine into a fine powder, just like the concrete) and by 20.1 sec., it appears that it has been completely "particularized", as the rate of descent slows down and the steel-beam-mist appears to act more like gas diffusing and not at all like a liquid or solid falling at free-fall speed
by 23.8 sec., it's clear that the spire-turned-to-mist is still there, still diffusing, and still falling SLOWLY.
BTW, there are clearer videos of the collapse, and I posted a link to one earlier on this thread, myself.
===========================
Yet [b]more evidence that the "spire" columns were external ones:[/b]
1) Sight downwards along the right edge of the "smoking" column; notice that you run into just near the apex of the water tower (just a little to the left of it)
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...ve/P9111198.jpg
1A) Note that the right edge that you have just sighted is a corner
2) Sight the water tower apex, again, in the following
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...ve/P9111199.jpg
Note that:
2a) The water tower apex is again pointing just a little to the right of the spire.
2b) Note the the spire is well off center from the "smoked columns" demolition
Recall that
3) Recall that there were 2 distinct demolition geometries (at least :-) )
I had previously posted a picture which showed this dramatically, with "smoked columns" visible for approximately 1/4 - 1/3 (or maybe more) of the tower's height. Right now, I can't find that picture, but this one does a fair job:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../nt_col1472.jpg
I suggest that you retract your claim that the spire columns belonged to the core.
Also, note that there are no pancakes to be seen, anywhere. :-)
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'm sorry I missed this. I came across it while doing a search.
It's not clear at all that these are core columns vs. outer columns. My best guess has always been that these are 'outer columns', because of what looked like the belts. AFAIK, there were no belts used for the core columns.
Most all the rest of your statements are merely popish denials of what anybody can clearly see and determine for themselves, and popish affirmations of what you claim is obvious, but is nothing of the sort. I'm referring specifically to:
QUOTE
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.
Before you can even talk about something being "CONCLUSIVE" evidence for something, you should at least make sure you characterize it correctly. Your arguments for declaring the spire from the core are what, exactly?
Please don't say that "clear as mud" picture which was posted recently. The shiny and mostly filled in facade is a further indication that we are looking at a piece of the exterior of a tower.
The second paragraph is, at this point anyway, meaningless for the same reason.
Ah, now we get to the third paragraph. This is a "two 'fer". You not only deny the visible evidence, CLEARLY and CONCLUSIVELY showing disintegration, but you claim that it supports a "pancake" theory!! Indeed, you claim that it "precisely" supports a pancake theory!
Your "observations" are at odds with what others can clearly see, and I believe that includes Gordon. Gordon at least had the humility to explain that he cannot explain the collapse of the spire, which is not just weird, but uber-weird.
Since you do not see what I see, please explain to me where exactly the TOP of the spire is at each 10th of a second from the onset of a collapse. Surely you don't believe that the center of mass of the spire could travel downwards faster than the speed of free fall. Recall that the the collapse, before I "lost sight of it", was more or less straight downwards. Thus, the downward velocity of the center of mass should equal the downward velocity of the top of the spire.
Together we should be able to determine for how many seconds the top of the spire should have been visible. If I then check your measurements, and look REALLY carefully, I should be able SEE the top of the spire, exactly where you also see it.
Of course, having studied the uber weird "collapse" of the spire, I'm quite confident that you cannot support your characterization of the spire's collapse AT ALL. But perhaps I've been hasty.
I invite you to prove your observations of the spire have any credibility, at all.
=============================
Just to refresh everybody's memory:
See
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/dustspire.gif
(You may have to install the Divx codec)
Observe:
at 13.4 sec. the spire is still vertical, but begins to bend
at 16.9 sec. it begins to collapse into it's footprint
by 17.8 it's clear that the steel is "vaporizing", i.e, the steel beam is becoming "particularized" (I imagine into a fine powder, just like the concrete) and by 20.1 sec., it appears that it has been completely "particularized", as the rate of descent slows down and the steel-beam-mist appears to act more like gas diffusing and not at all like a liquid or solid falling at free-fall speed
by 23.8 sec., it's clear that the spire-turned-to-mist is still there, still diffusing, and still falling SLOWLY.
BTW, there are clearer videos of the collapse, and I posted a link to one earlier on this thread, myself.
===========================
Yet [b]more evidence that the "spire" columns were external ones:[/b]
1) Sight downwards along the right edge of the "smoking" column; notice that you run into just near the apex of the water tower (just a little to the left of it)
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...ve/P9111198.jpg
1A) Note that the right edge that you have just sighted is a corner
2) Sight the water tower apex, again, in the following
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...ve/P9111199.jpg
Note that:
2a) The water tower apex is again pointing just a little to the right of the spire.
2b) Note the the spire is well off center from the "smoked columns" demolition
Recall that
3) Recall that there were 2 distinct demolition geometries (at least :-) )
I had previously posted a picture which showed this dramatically, with "smoked columns" visible for approximately 1/4 - 1/3 (or maybe more) of the tower's height. Right now, I can't find that picture, but this one does a fair job:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../nt_col1472.jpg
I suggest that you retract your claim that the spire columns belonged to the core.
Also, note that there are no pancakes to be seen, anywhere. :-)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 16 2006, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 16 2006, 06:56 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE
Does anybody have info on how much of IR will be reflected vs. absorbed on the skin of the column?
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI shielding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequencies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frequencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absorption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
Most materials absorb more than one band of EM. Water absorbs wavelengths near 0.4 cm very well and also wavelengths of 900 nm.
ALL matter emits IR, anything that is above absolute zero emits IR. Absorption and reflectivity are different.
IIRC the absorption of IR depends on several factors including, wavelength(frequency) of the IR and the temperature of the object the IR is impinging on.
I will look up what it says in the "Encyclopedia of Physics" vol. 2 . I have it somewhere in the basement, just gotta find it.
If you have access to "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics "
It very well might have some of the info you are looking for. It is online but only by paid subscription.
Obvious Core column rising from the dust cloud..
You can see the rest of the building pealing away...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp7.html
You can see the rest of the building pealing away...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp7.html
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 17 2006, 02:13 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+)
Firstly, are you disputing that if a surface reflects 90% of em radiation incident upon it, that it will absorb, at the most, 10% of the energy associated with that radiation?
No. Are you asserting that steel reflects 90% of the IR incident on it? Or even that there is any possibility that structural steel is capable of doing so? Have you considered that if that were true, there would be little point in putting insulation on it?
QUOTE (metamars+)
Are you disputing this general conservation of energy equation, and it's 'derivation' in the special case that Transmitted Energy* is 0, or aren't you?
No. What I'm disputing is your reflection claim (which was not at all clear from what you wrote initially, but is clear now).
QUOTE (metamars+)
As far as calculating, from first principles, what the exact proportions are at IR frequencies, I won't be doing that anytime soon. I would be happy to look it up without investing a lot of time (already tried that), and even happier if somebody else looked it up for me. Do you have ready access to this data? Anybody else?
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI shielding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequencies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frequencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absorption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
Most materials absorb more than one band of EM. Water absorbs wavelengths near 0.4 cm very well and also wavelengths of 900 nm.
ALL matter emits IR, anything that is above absolute zero emits IR. Absorption and reflectivity are different.
IIRC the absorption of IR depends on several factors including, wavelength(frequency) of the IR and the temperature of the object the IR is impinging on.
I will look up what it says in the "Encyclopedia of Physics" vol. 2 . I have it somewhere in the basement, just gotta find it.
If you have access to "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics "
It very well might have some of the info you are looking for. It is online but only by paid subscription.
My high school chemistry teacher got a bunch of us to buy the Chemistry and Physics handbook, in spite of the fact that I didn't like Chemistry.
I think I used it twice in my college career.
It is now in "rubble heaven", like the WTC rubble. (Non-steel, anyway.)
No, there are two types of fire proofing. One is as you point out, to allow evacuation of occupants. Another is to limit structural damage. Fire proofing structural columns falls within the later.
Keeping structural columns cooler will do little to extend the amount of time available to occupants to exit the building.
Walls and ceilings that block heat from other spaces and contain hot gases from escaping into other spaces are what allow occupants to evacuate. This is the reason for having panels in every drop ceiling rectangle, for floor to ceiling walls and steel doors.
I have several steel pans in my kitchen that get quite hot when exposed to flames on my gas stove. They don't seem to reflect much of the heat, and this seems to be a general property of steel, being as how building engineers think putting insulation on structural steel is such a good idea.
No, I am not asserting that 90% reflectivity holds at IR frequencies.
I am asserting that a) 90% reflectivity at 1 MHz suggests the possibility of 90% reflectivity at IR frequencies b ) a high reflectivity would obviously be of considerable significance in determining a limit on the degree of heating an exposed column could undergo due to radiant heat transfer and c) I would like to know a precise value at IR frequencies, whatever that precise value turns out to be.
Fire-proofing would cut down on all kinds of heat transfer. If fire proofing allowed an adjacent floor to remain passable by human beings for an extra 5 minutes, that would give it value.
The purpose of fire-proofing is to allow humans a larger window of time to escape. So says my cousin, an architect. (I had previously assumed that it was to allow the building to maintain it's integrity. Not from collapse, but from distortion. Straightening out a fire warped floor in the middle of a skyscraper sound fantastically expensive, to me. )
No, I am not asserting that 90% reflectivity holds at IR frequencies.
I am asserting that a) 90% reflectivity at 1 MHz suggests the possibility of 90% reflectivity at IR frequencies b ) a high reflectivity would obviously be of considerable significance in determining a limit on the degree of heating an exposed column could undergo due to radiant heat transfer and c) I would like to know a precise value at IR frequencies, whatever that precise value turns out to be.
Fire-proofing would cut down on all kinds of heat transfer. If fire proofing allowed an adjacent floor to remain passable by human beings for an extra 5 minutes, that would give it value.
The purpose of fire-proofing is to allow humans a larger window of time to escape. So says my cousin, an architect. (I had previously assumed that it was to allow the building to maintain it's integrity. Not from collapse, but from distortion. Straightening out a fire warped floor in the middle of a skyscraper sound fantastically expensive, to me. )
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 17 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 16 2006, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 16 2006, 06:56 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE
Does anybody have info on how much of IR will be reflected vs. absorbed on the skin of the column?
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
You should note that the title is RFI shielding. This is concerned only with frequencies used in communications. That is a far cry from infrared frequencies.
You are trying to gain some info on the absorption properties of steel when a EM in the range of 10^10 Hertz hits it by finding data on its properties concerning frequencies in the 10^6 Hertz.
You must know that the two will be in no way related.
I took a year of electricity and magnetism many years ago, but no, I don't know that they're not related, even if I used to know. Do you? For all I know, at infrared frequencies, the ratio rises to 20x, and the FEMA friendly view of significant steel column softening due to radiant thermal transfer becomes even less likely.
By all means, if you have an exact value, post it here, with references. I spent over 1.5 hours looking for info on infrared absorption/transmission/reflection on steel, and so far this is all I've come up with.
Most materials absorb more than one band of EM. Water absorbs wavelengths near 0.4 cm very well and also wavelengths of 900 nm.
ALL matter emits IR, anything that is above absolute zero emits IR. Absorption and reflectivity are different.
IIRC the absorption of IR depends on several factors including, wavelength(frequency) of the IR and the temperature of the object the IR is impinging on.
I will look up what it says in the "Encyclopedia of Physics" vol. 2 . I have it somewhere in the basement, just gotta find it.
If you have access to "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics "
It very well might have some of the info you are looking for. It is online but only by paid subscription.
My high school chemistry teacher got a bunch of us to buy the Chemistry and Physics handbook, in spite of the fact that I didn't like Chemistry.
I think I used it twice in my college career.
It is now in "rubble heaven", like the WTC rubble. (Non-steel, anyway.)
If the 'spire' consisted of perimeter columns only then it is even more unlikely that it would be able to stand alone for very long even if it were in pristine condition. It would have absolutely no lateral support in one dimension(perpendicular to the wall from which the columns originate). In its original state it received such lateral support by being attached to the core via the trusses.
Of course it was also NOT in pristine condition either, the acts that tore the rest of the building from around it could have twisted this remanant, could have cracked bolts etc. It is highly unlikely that this remanant was in great shape.
Ever play the game Jenga? You remove blocks one by one and the person who takes away a block that finally causes the towers to fall , loses. Often a block is removed later in the game and the tower remains standing but falls before the next player even makes a move to take out another block. In this case the tower is unstable and similarily the 'spire' was unstable and fell quickly as it succumbed to buckling forces.
Of course it was also NOT in pristine condition either, the acts that tore the rest of the building from around it could have twisted this remanant, could have cracked bolts etc. It is highly unlikely that this remanant was in great shape.
Ever play the game Jenga? You remove blocks one by one and the person who takes away a block that finally causes the towers to fall , loses. Often a block is removed later in the game and the tower remains standing but falls before the next player even makes a move to take out another block. In this case the tower is unstable and similarily the 'spire' was unstable and fell quickly as it succumbed to buckling forces.
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 17 2006, 03:46 AM)
Obvious Core column rising from the dust cloud..
You can see the rest of the building pealing away...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp7.html
This is the picture that I referred to as "clear as mud".
Is it just my eyes, or do you not clealy see that the shininess and filled in appearance matches that of the other tower? In spite of the "clear as mud" characteristics, that much is obvious.
You can see the rest of the building pealing away...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp7.html
This is the picture that I referred to as "clear as mud".
Is it just my eyes, or do you not clealy see that the shininess and filled in appearance matches that of the other tower? In spite of the "clear as mud" characteristics, that much is obvious.
QUOTE
The purpose of fire-proofing is to allow humans a larger window of time to escape. So says my cousin, an architect. (I had previously assumed that it was to allow the building to maintain it's integrity. Not from collapse, but from distortion. Straightening out a fire warped floor in the middle of a skyscraper sound fantastically expensive, to me. )
No, there are two types of fire proofing. One is as you point out, to allow evacuation of occupants. Another is to limit structural damage. Fire proofing structural columns falls within the later.
Keeping structural columns cooler will do little to extend the amount of time available to occupants to exit the building.
Walls and ceilings that block heat from other spaces and contain hot gases from escaping into other spaces are what allow occupants to evacuate. This is the reason for having panels in every drop ceiling rectangle, for floor to ceiling walls and steel doors.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 17 2006, 03:59 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 17 2006, 03:46 AM)
Obvious Core column rising from the dust cloud..
You can see the rest of the building pealing away...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp7.html
This is the picture that I referred to as "clear as mud".
Is it just my eyes, or do you not clealy see that the shininess and filled in appearance matches that of the other tower? In spite of the "clear as mud" characteristics, that much is obvious.
Do you not notice that
a) the building in question cannot possibly be as wide as the still standing tower
AND
b ) that there is smoke and dust rising from well below the level of the grid of building visible through the smoke and dust?
c) that there is a patch of sky visible in a break in the smoke plume directly above the grid structure of this tower showing that this tower has collapsed lower than this level.
The only time there was this much smoke and dust from that low on the south tower(and this must be the south tower since it is the first to fall) was after the building collapsed to lower levels.
As far as 'shininess' goes, the picture is apparently taken from the south-east and as such would be extremly well lit by the Sun. I see it as slightly darker than the standing tower.
Is this a portion of the core or a portion of the perimeter column structure? Do we have a frame of both buildings taken from this spot before the collapse progressed lower than the levels blocked from view by the building in the foreground? If so then one can determine where the right edge of the original wall (north wall, since this picture is taken from the south-east?).
Hi metamars, I actually have been working on putting together one for some time. The amount of research needed is huge. I couldn't begin to calculate the hours I have put into this project. The search for accurate details of the WTC towers is a long and frustrating one. I wasn't studying building constructions in general prior to 2001 ... even though I have worked with architects as far back as 1976 designing and fabricating a number of building structures with reinforced composites.
.....
Hope that helps...
Thanks very much. I'm sure it does.
You can see the rest of the building pealing away...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp7.html
This is the picture that I referred to as "clear as mud".
Is it just my eyes, or do you not clealy see that the shininess and filled in appearance matches that of the other tower? In spite of the "clear as mud" characteristics, that much is obvious.
Do you not notice that
a) the building in question cannot possibly be as wide as the still standing tower
AND
b ) that there is smoke and dust rising from well below the level of the grid of building visible through the smoke and dust?
c) that there is a patch of sky visible in a break in the smoke plume directly above the grid structure of this tower showing that this tower has collapsed lower than this level.
The only time there was this much smoke and dust from that low on the south tower(and this must be the south tower since it is the first to fall) was after the building collapsed to lower levels.
As far as 'shininess' goes, the picture is apparently taken from the south-east and as such would be extremly well lit by the Sun. I see it as slightly darker than the standing tower.
Is this a portion of the core or a portion of the perimeter column structure? Do we have a frame of both buildings taken from this spot before the collapse progressed lower than the levels blocked from view by the building in the foreground? If so then one can determine where the right edge of the original wall (north wall, since this picture is taken from the south-east?).
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 17 2006, 03:54 AM)
My high school chemistry teacher got a bunch of us to buy the Chemistry and Physics handbook, in spite of the fact that I didn't like Chemistry.
I think I used it twice in my college career.
It is now in "rubble heaven", like the WTC rubble. (Non-steel, anyway.)
Too bad, it has chapters such as
Section 5: Thermochemistry, Electrochemistry, and Kinetics
CODATA Key Values for Thermodynamics
Standard Thermodynamic Properties of Chemical Substances
Thermodynamic Properties as a Function of Temperature
Heat of Combustion
Chemical Kinetic Data for Stratospheric Modeling
Kinetic Data for Combustion Modeling
Might have been useful since not everything is actually on the internet.
If you really want this info you are going to have to visit a university library.
I think I used it twice in my college career.
It is now in "rubble heaven", like the WTC rubble. (Non-steel, anyway.)
Too bad, it has chapters such as
Section 5: Thermochemistry, Electrochemistry, and Kinetics
CODATA Key Values for Thermodynamics
Standard Thermodynamic Properties of Chemical Substances
Thermodynamic Properties as a Function of Temperature
Heat of Combustion
Chemical Kinetic Data for Stratospheric Modeling
Kinetic Data for Combustion Modeling
Might have been useful since not everything is actually on the internet.
If you really want this info you are going to have to visit a university library.
All you have to do is click on the link below the picture and see the sequence to know it can be none other than the core. The perimeter columns are clearly shown pealing away in front of it.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 17 2006, 02:51 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by metamars
{Foxx}:
You have made a careful study of the buildings' construction details, and can speak to that. I believe our thinking should be along the lines of essays, not merely a longish forum post, which may ramble off in different directions. Think of the articles that are quoted on 911blogger.com, and you begin to get the idea. Your subject would at least summarize the true building characteristics, as best we know them, and the logical inconsistencies in the NIST, plus popular "myths" propagated by the other side that you have debunked.
{Foxx}:
You have made a careful study of the buildings' construction details, and can speak to that. I believe our thinking should be along the lines of essays, not merely a longish forum post, which may ramble off in different directions. Think of the articles that are quoted on 911blogger.com, and you begin to get the idea. Your subject would at least summarize the true building characteristics, as best we know them, and the logical inconsistencies in the NIST, plus popular "myths" propagated by the other side that you have debunked.
Hi metamars, I actually have been working on putting together one for some time. The amount of research needed is huge. I couldn't begin to calculate the hours I have put into this project. The search for accurate details of the WTC towers is a long and frustrating one. I wasn't studying building constructions in general prior to 2001 ... even though I have worked with architects as far back as 1976 designing and fabricating a number of building structures with reinforced composites.
.....
Hope that helps...
Thanks very much. I'm sure it does.
One more thing about the size of the core. If you look a the photo you can see the fires of the other tower. Below the fire is a darker than normal band of the tower known as the mechanical level. The towers had 2 mechanical level bands, two levels each. These levels were on the 75th and 76th floors. The core which comes through the cloud comes through close to the the 75th floor. The first building to fall was hit on the floors not much higher than that. If you take off ten floors it's still 65 floors.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 17 2006, 04:22 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 17 2006, 03:59 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 17 2006, 03:46 AM)
Obvious Core column rising from the dust cloud..
You can see the rest of the building pealing away...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp7.html
This is the picture that I referred to as "clear as mud".
Is it just my eyes, or do you not clealy see that the shininess and filled in appearance matches that of the other tower? In spite of the "clear as mud" characteristics, that much is obvious.
Do you not notice that
a) the building in question cannot possibly be as wide as the still standing tower
AND
b ) that there is smoke and dust rising from well below the level of the grid of building visible through the smoke and dust?
c) that there is a patch of sky visible in a break in the smoke plume directly above the grid structure of this tower showing that this tower has collapsed lower than this level.
The only time there was this much smoke and dust from that low on the south tower(and this must be the south tower since it is the first to fall) was after the building collapsed to lower levels.
As far as 'shininess' goes, the picture is apparently taken from the south-east and as such would be extremly well lit by the Sun. I see it as slightly darker than the standing tower.
Is this a portion of the core or a portion of the perimeter column structure? Do we have a frame of both buildings taken from this spot before the collapse progressed lower than the levels blocked from view by the building in the foreground? If so then one can determine where the right edge of the original wall (north wall, since this picture is taken from the south-east?).
Your a) argument makes no sense, because the tower on the right is cropped in this picture.
Your b ) and c) arguments don't speak to exterior vs. core, at least not in any way that I can understand.
Your "sunlight" argument does make some sense, in that one can claim that either core or exterior would be somewhat shiny.* But what of the "filled in", grid-like characteristics? While not clear in any case it certainly looks like the facade of the other building. Just based on this photo alone, the parsimonious explanation is that we are looking at an exterior. In light of the other evidence I just pointed out, I see no possible justification for claiming that the spire belonged to the core. If the structure in this picture is supposed to be the spire, then that settles it.
Again I ask, on what basis can anybody describe this picture as evidence for core columns?
Note, too, that Hoffman's comment on the web page you list is:
He has made a detailed study of the collapses, and all he can say about this picture is to ask a question.
* Even this I have a problem with. The core would have presented many surfaces for catching dust, which mitigate shininess. Not so the exterior.
You can see the rest of the building pealing away...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp7.html
This is the picture that I referred to as "clear as mud".
Is it just my eyes, or do you not clealy see that the shininess and filled in appearance matches that of the other tower? In spite of the "clear as mud" characteristics, that much is obvious.
Do you not notice that
a) the building in question cannot possibly be as wide as the still standing tower
AND
b ) that there is smoke and dust rising from well below the level of the grid of building visible through the smoke and dust?
c) that there is a patch of sky visible in a break in the smoke plume directly above the grid structure of this tower showing that this tower has collapsed lower than this level.
The only time there was this much smoke and dust from that low on the south tower(and this must be the south tower since it is the first to fall) was after the building collapsed to lower levels.
As far as 'shininess' goes, the picture is apparently taken from the south-east and as such would be extremly well lit by the Sun. I see it as slightly darker than the standing tower.
Is this a portion of the core or a portion of the perimeter column structure? Do we have a frame of both buildings taken from this spot before the collapse progressed lower than the levels blocked from view by the building in the foreground? If so then one can determine where the right edge of the original wall (north wall, since this picture is taken from the south-east?).
Your a) argument makes no sense, because the tower on the right is cropped in this picture.
Your b ) and c) arguments don't speak to exterior vs. core, at least not in any way that I can understand.
Your "sunlight" argument does make some sense, in that one can claim that either core or exterior would be somewhat shiny.* But what of the "filled in", grid-like characteristics? While not clear in any case it certainly looks like the facade of the other building. Just based on this photo alone, the parsimonious explanation is that we are looking at an exterior. In light of the other evidence I just pointed out, I see no possible justification for claiming that the spire belonged to the core. If the structure in this picture is supposed to be the spire, then that settles it.
Again I ask, on what basis can anybody describe this picture as evidence for core columns?
Note, too, that Hoffman's comment on the web page you list is:
QUOTE
If that photo was taken after the rest, and the tower has already fallen, then what is the apparently intact vertical structure where the tower was?
He has made a detailed study of the collapses, and all he can say about this picture is to ask a question.
* Even this I have a problem with. The core would have presented many surfaces for catching dust, which mitigate shininess. Not so the exterior.
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 17 2006, 04:56 AM)
One more thing about the size of the core. If you look a the photo you can see the fires of the other tower. Below the fire is a darker than normal band of the tower known as the mechanical level. The towers had 2 mechanical level bands, two levels each. These levels were on the 75th and 76th floors. The core which comes through the cloud comes through close to the the 75th floor. The first building to fall was hit on the floors not much higher than that. If you take off ten floors it's still 65 floors.
I see no discernible structure on the left anywhere near 65 floors. The top 45% of the area in the photo where such would be visible is obscured by smoke. (eyeballed this)
I see no discernible structure on the left anywhere near 65 floors. The top 45% of the area in the photo where such would be visible is obscured by smoke. (eyeballed this)
partially-vaporised aluminum dust COULD be the shinyness.
apparently, there was a fair amount of iron and aluminum in the fine dust which blanketed the streets up to SIX inches in depth, and up to THREE inches as far as six blocks away.
i will try and watch the video again, tonight, and think about it.
apparently, there was a fair amount of iron and aluminum in the fine dust which blanketed the streets up to SIX inches in depth, and up to THREE inches as far as six blocks away.
i will try and watch the video again, tonight, and think about it.
QUOTE (newton+Jan 17 2006, 05:11 AM)
partially-vaporised aluminum dust COULD be the shinyness.
apparently, there was a fair amount of iron and aluminum in the fine dust which blanketed the streets up to SIX inches in depth, and up to THREE inches as far as six blocks away.
i will try and watch the video again, tonight, and think about it.
The people covered with dust in the picture at
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/index.html
don't look too shiny.....
(yes, I know, they're not in the sun)
apparently, there was a fair amount of iron and aluminum in the fine dust which blanketed the streets up to SIX inches in depth, and up to THREE inches as far as six blocks away.
i will try and watch the video again, tonight, and think about it.
The people covered with dust in the picture at
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/index.html
don't look too shiny.....
(yes, I know, they're not in the sun)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 17 2006, 06:10 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Jan 17 2006, 05:11 AM)
partially-vaporised aluminum dust COULD be the shinyness.
apparently, there was a fair amount of iron and aluminum in the fine dust which blanketed the streets up to SIX inches in depth, and up to THREE inches as far as six blocks away.
i will try and watch the video again, tonight, and think about it.
The people covered with dust in the picture at
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/index.html
don't look too shiny.....
(yes, I know, they're not in the sun)
i just started thinking about vapourised metal. it's new to me.
would tiny metal flakes fall at the same rate as tiny gpysum, concrete, human, plastic and wood flakes? i think of those little sparkles that get everywhere. would metal not pick up an attractive static charge better than the other particulates? aluminum would vapourise much quicker than steel, i imagine. there should be some seperation of particulates by mass, heat and charge, creating layers of different sized chunks.
i don't know. the dust had all that material ground up into an inches thick dust that blanketed the street with inches deep dust. it seemed pretty uniform, from what i've read (admittedly not much, because of the MASSIVE COVER-UP!) and seen.
one report i read the day after hunter s. thompson was suicided disappeared. he claimed to have definitive proof of the 'official conspiracy theory'.
he was also named as the man who filmed the brutal rape/murder of a young boy as per 'the franklin coverup'. 'they' use doubles for blackmail and protection (see 'osama'(the nose) from the 'confession video', and 'saddam' from the trial (the teeth). false flags, nick berg(english voices, prison background, no spatter).
so many dark, disturbing questions. and the sad part is, we are trying to make a definitive analysis with disassociated data.
i actually don't think they look too shiny. it sure disappeared fast, whatever it was.
reality sure ain't what it used to be. it sucks to know.
newton Jan 17 2006, 06:45 AM
reality is what you can get away with.
I've been banned from here until 23rd january. Some of my postshave "dissaperared" too.
reality is what you can get away with.
I've been banned from here until 23rd january. Some of my postshave "dissaperared" too.
Bateson defines information as "a difference that makes a difference"
Gregory Bateson (9 May 1904–4 July 1980) was a British anthropologist, social scientist, linguist and cyberneticist whose work intersected that of many other fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson
good to see we are making a difference
saludos hermanos y hermanas.
war is terrorism
THIS IS ME ARTHUR
FULL HYPERTEXT VERSION AT http://plectic.com/advthrt.html
rockin from decentral brothers.......
apparently, there was a fair amount of iron and aluminum in the fine dust which blanketed the streets up to SIX inches in depth, and up to THREE inches as far as six blocks away.
i will try and watch the video again, tonight, and think about it.
The people covered with dust in the picture at
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/index.html
don't look too shiny.....
(yes, I know, they're not in the sun)
i just started thinking about vapourised metal. it's new to me.
would tiny metal flakes fall at the same rate as tiny gpysum, concrete, human, plastic and wood flakes? i think of those little sparkles that get everywhere. would metal not pick up an attractive static charge better than the other particulates? aluminum would vapourise much quicker than steel, i imagine. there should be some seperation of particulates by mass, heat and charge, creating layers of different sized chunks.
i don't know. the dust had all that material ground up into an inches thick dust that blanketed the street with inches deep dust. it seemed pretty uniform, from what i've read (admittedly not much, because of the MASSIVE COVER-UP!) and seen.
one report i read the day after hunter s. thompson was suicided disappeared. he claimed to have definitive proof of the 'official conspiracy theory'.
he was also named as the man who filmed the brutal rape/murder of a young boy as per 'the franklin coverup'. 'they' use doubles for blackmail and protection (see 'osama'(the nose) from the 'confession video', and 'saddam' from the trial (the teeth). false flags, nick berg(english voices, prison background, no spatter).
so many dark, disturbing questions. and the sad part is, we are trying to make a definitive analysis with disassociated data.
i actually don't think they look too shiny. it sure disappeared fast, whatever it was.
reality sure ain't what it used to be. it sucks to know.
Arthur you are most certainly already on the wrong train.
The Madrid Bombing was carried out by Mossad and/or MI6 / CIA.
The same "Israeli Based" Security Company that took care of WTC and London Underground was in charge.
Do you need any more dots joined?
http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/madrid.html
http://100777.com/faketerror/london
http://www.physics911.net/faketerror.htm
The Madrid Bombing was carried out by Mossad and/or MI6 / CIA.
The same "Israeli Based" Security Company that took care of WTC and London Underground was in charge.
Do you need any more dots joined?
http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/madrid.html
http://100777.com/faketerror/london
http://www.physics911.net/faketerror.htm
newton Jan 17 2006, 06:45 AM
QUOTE
reality sure ain't what it used to be. it sucks to know
reality is what you can get away with.
I've been banned from here until 23rd january. Some of my postshave "dissaperared" too.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| reality sure ain't what it used to be. it sucks to know |
reality is what you can get away with.
I've been banned from here until 23rd january. Some of my postshave "dissaperared" too.
Bateson defines information as "a difference that makes a difference"
Gregory Bateson (9 May 1904–4 July 1980) was a British anthropologist, social scientist, linguist and cyberneticist whose work intersected that of many other fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson
good to see we are making a difference
saludos hermanos y hermanas.
war is terrorism
I'll just take that a little further :
War is terrorism by the rich and powerful countries on the poor and defencless. Terrorism, on the other hand, is war by the poor and defenceless against the rich and powerful.
War is terrorism by the rich and powerful countries on the poor and defencless. Terrorism, on the other hand, is war by the poor and defenceless against the rich and powerful.
QUOTE (Guest_Temp+Jan 17 2006, 10:34 AM)
Arthur you are most certainly already on the wrong train.
The Madrid Bombing was carried out by Mossad and/or MI6 / CIA.
The same "Israeli Based" Security Company that took care of WTC and London Underground was in charge.
Do you need any more dots joined?
http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/madrid.html
http://100777.com/faketerror/london
http://www.physics911.net/faketerror.htm
Frater is that you?
Sure smells like your typical BS.
Arthur
The Madrid Bombing was carried out by Mossad and/or MI6 / CIA.
The same "Israeli Based" Security Company that took care of WTC and London Underground was in charge.
Do you need any more dots joined?
http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/madrid.html
http://100777.com/faketerror/london
http://www.physics911.net/faketerror.htm
Frater is that you?
Sure smells like your typical BS.
Arthur
QUOTE
breif
Either take a recent interactive product or design one yourself and analyse the consistency or otherwise of its navigation metaphor. Use a Batesonian based critique to question whether the context it sets enhances or detracts from the experience it attempts to engender in the user. The format of the presentation is unspecified, but it should attempt in some way to become itself a demonstration of your critique, i.e. its form and narrative should invoke the points addressed in your analysis.
background information of the bateson meta-dialogue can be found here
"When reality is mediated in print photography, television, and film, what we see is not only not reality, but a synthetic reality highly susceptible to manipulation. Furthermore, if it is true as hypothesised that media-induced vicarious experience may later mix with actual occurrences in memory and render them indistinguishable from one another, then media may play a substantial role in developing mental maps that blend media and reality together as a single mental experience, which in turn directs our interpretation of the present, further revises memory, and affects the direction of our thoughts and action" (visual intelligence.suny press. 1998)
hijack consensus reality
introduction
from this decentralized definition of reality, i decided to use a batesonian based critique on three articles from the la times, which i purchased when i had the fortunate experience of spending two weeks holiday (or should that be vacation?) in california and mexico. the first two articles will be cross referenced to reveal level zero, level one and level two logical learning types, then after a little bit of groundwork I will attempt to show manifestations of level three logical learning types.you have been warned. i also intend to make generous use of hypertext, for the simple fact that hypertext rocks.
images
i have linked several relevent images to this html page, primarily because the la times don't allow you to cut and paste articles that are more than 14 days old and being as stubborn as i am, i was unwilling to pay the two dollars for each article. consntly i have scanned in the three articles, they are,as follows..,
israel will declare peace process over if violence persists , page 1, 9th october 2000
15 000 in manhattan show their anger at palestinians, page9. 13th october 2000
peru's unshackled media take first steps toward free press, page 5, 13th october 2000
zero learning
firstly, there must be some sort of acknowledgement that strictly speaking, defining level zero (or hard-wired/closed, static learning) in this particular context is problematic in itself. the system of information flow is not completely self-encapsulated, due to the avaliability of a letters page on page 11 of the newspaper or even a telephone contact number, where the public can engage in a dialogue (of sorts) with the newspaper without any prior comitment to the newspaper. the content of the information to reveal zero learning is irrelevent (or possibly generic). it can manifest itself as the simple transfer of information within a fixed circuit (or loop) with minimal responsive change. a good (but not definite) example of this would be a person that reads the la times every day, at more or less the same time, in more or less the same sequence with the same (minimal change in ) response. it is likely that this example started with a learning one response, but as soon as dogmatism creeps in to our worldviews or belief systems are formed, zero learning rears it's ugly head. (no overt response, subservience to hierachy, paradigm protection, secondary education system in britain)
learning one
this is where the fun starts
my intepretation of level one leads to the conclusion that the keyword here is CONTEXT. in this particular case, the acknowledgement of where the information comes from, and the metamessage that arrives with the information (or signal) classifying it.......so.....
firstly i feel it is better to explain the position of the la times within all this to form a context (of sorts). the la times is part of LATS( the los angleles times syndicate), which in turn controls 3000 print publications in 100 countries all over the world, including selling approximately 1 100 000 copies of the latimes each day for 50 cents (about 30 p) ,more comprehensive information is here. LATS is owned by the times- mirror company (since june 2000) making it the only media company in the world with interests in television, newspaper and interactive media that is capable of reaching 80 percent of all household in america, it also has an interesting socio-historical past. without doubt it is a true media multi-national with economic (and consequently political) interests worldwide, combined with an unparalleled use of both horizontal and vertical economic intergration to regulate every level of production and distribution.
in simple (almost reductionist terms) the main agenda of the vast majority of multi national corporations, in all their manifestations is to make money. not to inform the public, not to serve the public, not to tell the public what is happening in the world. unfortunately i do not have the time or the scope to go into detail of why I beleive this is so, although i will use the chomsky propaganda model to highlight some of the flaws(or bias')that are generally prevailent in information received in this particular kind of context. a different context with the same propaganda model can also be viewed. basically the latimes is corporation that sells a product. the product is not the newspaper itself, but is the audience. products have to be sold to the market (in this context the audience), by other corporations. corporations sell audiences to other corporations. in the case of the elite media, it's big business. a very obvious (but suprisingly underdeveloped) hypothesis would be to ask if the information is biased (or slanted) to reflect and serve the interests of the buyers and sellers, the institutions and the power structures that are around them. (common sense ?)
"Communication research has evolved as a branch of functionalist sociology, for which the question of social integration (e.g through the dissemination of a'central value system' throughout the entire social fabric) is the main concern"
(living room wars. Ien Ang . Routledge.1996)
basically, when you are paying for information a relationship is engineered between the two (or more ) parties concerned, the continuation of which is actively encouraged (for the very survival of at least one of the aforementioned parties concerned) possibly through a metamessage that is encapsulated either subconciously or consciously witthin that information, normally containing somesort of ideological bias.
using the propaganda model, it would be fair to say that a newspaper such as the latimes, with regards to independent reporting, is terribly restricted by the political and economic shackles it has self-imposed. it is tightly integrated into the banking system of north america through credits, loans and movement of information (capital) into other foreign markets usually containing american commercial and value messages. the fact that advertising pays such a major role in the sustainability of such a mass-produced media product works as a mechanism to weaken the media that is not dependent on 'market forces' (advertising)(re: daily herald, britain in 1967). also much of the information within the newspaper is (apparently) from 'official' sources, officals have 'facts' and reporters get them. commonly held opinions are then propagated and promoted, some eventually recorded as 'official history' whatever that may be. sometimes flak or negative responses to the media are allowed to enter the system of exchange, but usually these are financed by the very same companies, usually once again serving the interests of power.
very occasionaly this symbolic power (the manipulation of codes) is apparent, a good example would be the gulf war in 1991, when after a short term, the official reason for the war (liberation of the iraqi people from an 'evil' dictator (saddam hussain) did not tie in with the generally agreed public consensus which was that the war was primarily instigated to regulate control of oil supply from iraq.
"In the gulf war, people believe they were seeing reality unfolding before them instead of understanding that they were only seeing a version of events, primarily because no intermediary was immediately visible. In part precipitated by a public relations firm on behalf of a client, in part controlled by political and military motives, and in part filtered by networks on their drive to create 'the proper mindset'for reception of commercials, the images which emerged were both less accurate and less informative than people suspected. As a result, viewers came to feel that they were indeed in a position to make informed political judgements"
(visual intelligence.suny press. 1998)
in conclusion, the context is undeniably economically and consequently politically motivated (or is that the other way round?) with the extreme possibility of 'central values' being incorperated within that contextual information. in the words of adam smith, 'the vile maxim of the masters' where the principal architects of power will be attended to.(context)
learning two
this is loosely defined within the article as 'discrimination between contexts' or information regarding a group or class of events. i guess could be defined as a fine tuning, or self-acknowledgement of the processes learnt at learnig 1 and learning when and how to apply learning one logical types.
firstly a little context about the two leading protagonists in the first two articles, the plalestinians and the isralis. jewish immigration to the holy land (jerusalem) began in the 1880's with a marked increase just before the onset of the second world war, due to the numbers of jews persecuted in germany. palestine, which was then a british mandated territory which stretched from lebanon down to egypt, with it's eastern and western borders dictated by the meditarranean and the dead sea, respectivley. in 1947 the british gave up it's mandate and although the palestinians rejected the idea, the foundation state of israel was decalred in may 1948. in 1949 the israli's extended the area given to them by the UN. an interactive history of the dispute can be found here from the start until the present day together with a host of links. to put this into a temporal context, the palestinians, after thousands of years of autonomy have in the last 50yrs or so been forcibly made (primarily by the UN) to give over half of their land to the israli's. it would be academically unprofessional to take sides, but from a strictly historical perspective, there seems to be a lot of ambiguity in the situation.
the first article is titled "israel will declare peace process over if violence persists" . even the very linguistic structure of the title suggest a bias towards israel, this reinforced in the sub-heading "tanks roll into position as jews begin solemn yom kippur observance" of course in this context the isralis are generally jews, and only the isralis have tanks...so they are going to be in two places at once eh ? ambiguity and disinformation is once again the order of the day here. the dispute is said to have taken a "qualitative" leap with the capture of 3 israli troops (even though by this time 80 palestinians, including an 11 year old boy) had been killed in the previous 11 days. as a propaganda model study there is an extremely transparent undercurrent here, with a strong dichtomization towards israel..
the second article "15 000 people show their anger at the palestinians" adheres to the previous articles narrative and emotional projection, almost flawlessly. "those of us that reject hatred and fanaticism...finally recognise yasser arafat for what he is- ignorant, devious and unworthy of trust" claims a nobel-prize winner (!!). the real soundbite quote here, however, is "the peace process is vital, but it will never work if you engage in the fiction that there is a moral equivalent between the palestine liberation organization and the state of israel .there is not ". this is incredulous. how can one one person's or group of individual's worldview or ideology be not as morally acceptable as another's ? who defines the boundaries of morality, the bouindaries of discourse ? comparing the two articles a clear pattern has emerged, the palastinians have been satanized and the israli's quite blatantly humanised.
"The models of the universe which our culture has employed influence our very language, and the structure of our thought, indeed the very constitution of our logic, is seen in the architecture of today¹s computers. The western model of the universe is political, being derived from engineeriong or architecture. All Western thought is based on the idea that the universe is a construct, and even when we get rid of the idea of the constructor of the personal god we continue to think of the world in terms of it being a machine" the tao of philosophy Alan Watts . Eden Grove . 1996
infact, regarding binuristic linguistics, it has NEVER been stated in the maistream american press that "america invaded vietnam" (using those words). the methods of contol are all-evading, right down to the very structure of our language. we have been trapped by our language, this reinforced by our (western?) bio-cultural instinctual reidue regarding the fear of death, promoting the idea that there are such concepts as closure and finitude. fear is the mechanism of blindness for the 'bewildered herd" (walter lipmann) , the 90 percent of the population that have no real dealings with the direction of their own lives.
but why israel good, palestine bad ?
this is simply a question of client-based privalige, money again, or rather the exchange of money, this hypothesis can be clearly verified by a simple academic study into contemporary localized conflicts (including civil wars), focusing on the mass media representation of moral values within similar contexts, also the role of the us within the united nations structure , especially it's use of veto power.
since it's inception in 1948, israel has engaged in free trade with north america. palestine (or what was formally palestine) hasn't been directly involved in business with the north americans.
israel has amongst other things......
with the help of a CIA subsidy, maintained and ruled the motabi tribe in zaire.
helped suppor general somoza by selling him arms (from america)...to get around a trade embargo.
assisted the us in genocide in both guatemala and nicaragua.
"in these efforts , israel functioned within the extraordinary terrorist network that the united states designed, particularly during the reagan years, including taiwan, sauidi arabia, south africa, argentine neo-nazis, and an intricate system of arms suppliers, military trainers and funders worldwide. at the same time, israel forged close links with the u.s intelligence and the pentagon, both in the military production and in the testing of advanced weapons under battlefield conditions or against defenceless targets, again providing valuble services for u.s power. israel has also offered to the united states a form of export promotion as grants of arms to israel helped stimulate huge arms sales to the arab states, recycling petrodollars to u.s industry". world orders old and new . noam chomsky . columbia. 1996
firstly, i would like to reinforce i am not pro-israel or anti-palestinian (or vice-versa). this is a media analysis, not a test of moral integrity. i support no ideology. i also categorically state that all media is a form of representation.
in conclusion, from the cross referencing of the two articles within a larger theoretical framework,the positive representation of a groups morality has an direct relationhip to the ideological compatability of that group to that of the producer of that representation.
(context of context)
additional stuff
"peru's unshackled media take first steps toward free press" was another article that i found in the 13th october issue of the latimes. when the media talks of 'reinforcing democracy' and claiming to have 'opened the only window of reality during the troubled election', it always makes me feel a little cold. i did a little initial research into the 'commitee to protect journalists' , the next thing i then did was to find out who finances this committe, it read like a who's who of multi-national corperations. the 'enemies' top 10 is well worth a giggle too. (and it does include the peruvian prime minister too).
the television station in the article, canal n is owned by el comercio, a peruvian newspaper, that has also had a long and varied history . canal n has been operational for about a year. it has also been float ed on the peruvian stock exchange , and although i found out that telefonica, one of a couple ofmulti-national corporations was also interested in buying it, i spent nearly a week without no real concrete 'evidence' of who was the owner of the company. here's some various links, they include arms dealing, drug - running and obviously some jigh-end politcal corruption. enjoy .
http://www.cpj.org/protests/00ltrs/Peru07april00pl.html
http://www.italian.it/isf/ifex925.htm
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/ii/ii042000.html
http://www.freelori.org/news/00sep14_reuters.html
poor perople terrorists.
rich people governments
learning three
partytime.
"each one of us has thus an universe of his own, but it is the same universe for each one as soon as it includes all possible experience. this implies the extension of conciousness to include all other conciousness"
liber al vel legis. aliester crowley . 1904 .
space is the total possibilites of every kind.
hadit is the point which has experience of these possibilites.
download full aliester crowley texts here
the universe (or what is generally agreed to be the universe) , can be traced back to humble beginnings approximately 15 billion years ago. this can be rectified because scientists have been able to measure the differences in wavelengths of background radiation, that was generated at the start/birth of the universe (the so-called big bang), which if einstein's e=mc2 equation still holds, dictates that this was consisted of material of infinite density. before this point, it is not known if time existed or even if there was any form of cosmic/divine intervention, all we know is that the universe as we know it, is in a present state of eternal inflation, that can be chased back to the primeval detonation of the big bang. reality giving birth to itself.
"look at money. inflation, that is the crisis, agreed . but something else is far more disturbing or, better, more astounding: the mass of floating money globally encircling the earth. it is the only really artificial satellite. money has necome a pure artefact of a celestial movement, of a momentary exchangeability. money has finally found its proper place, one far more unusual than in the stock exchange:the earth orbit, in which it rises and falls like an artificial sun".
the anorexic ruins . looking back at the end of the world . jean baudrillard
nothing is made from nothing.
with regards to organic life, and it's origins. it extremely likely that over the course of the the last couple of million years, biologically interesting elements, such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and silicon have been combined with extremely high temperatures and/or nuclear fusion to form the building blocks of all known life forms, dna. again cosmic or divine intervention as non-scienti fic it may sound cannot be ruled inadmissable. from studying all the major religions, such as shamanism, gnosticism ,tantra, taoism, sufism and even christianity, it seems to be extremely feasible historically that we are descended from the 'skies'. a common interpretation of the tibetan book of the dead, one of the oldest complete texts in human history is that we are descended from the stars, specifically sirius the dog star. a similar narritive is readily accesible to anyone who has a keen interest in the archetypal images present in alchemy. whichever way you interpret the origins of life and the earth, every living organism is without doubt from the same source, wherever (or however) that may be. no suprises here mr bates.
the absolute rule of the state shall be a function of the absolute liberty of each individual will.
Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law
there is no wrong
no right
up/down
loss of identity
laughing at religion and politics
model agnosticism
obserever-created reality
jung
crowley
theater, ritual and ceremony
ethnomethology
reich
memes
media theory
culture jamming
alchemy
dna
gaia
leary
neuro-linguistic programming
joyce
einstein
there is no doubt of the economic success of the 'american project' . in human terms it is quite possibly the most adventerous and non-ephemeral socio-political construction in history. the world, of course is nothing but image. the world as image is a normative concept planning and implementing a global society. a world filled with excrescential objects, a world of abject waste and over-production.
the human species is not and will never be a permanent fixture on this planet.
time is infinite.
every number is infinite.
abrahadabra.
aum. ah.
in conclusion. it is now 2.30 am and this project
has
to
be
in
tommorow...
so...
level one shows the political and economic frameworks, with examles of transparency. level two shows the pattern of similar contexts throughout the course of history. level three shows convergence on a point of singlularity and ultimately luminosity, the point being the universal destination for the whole world at the end of a historically-written linear narritive.
over and out
transmission ends 2.49 p.m 7th october 2000
Either take a recent interactive product or design one yourself and analyse the consistency or otherwise of its navigation metaphor. Use a Batesonian based critique to question whether the context it sets enhances or detracts from the experience it attempts to engender in the user. The format of the presentation is unspecified, but it should attempt in some way to become itself a demonstration of your critique, i.e. its form and narrative should invoke the points addressed in your analysis.
background information of the bateson meta-dialogue can be found here
"When reality is mediated in print photography, television, and film, what we see is not only not reality, but a synthetic reality highly susceptible to manipulation. Furthermore, if it is true as hypothesised that media-induced vicarious experience may later mix with actual occurrences in memory and render them indistinguishable from one another, then media may play a substantial role in developing mental maps that blend media and reality together as a single mental experience, which in turn directs our interpretation of the present, further revises memory, and affects the direction of our thoughts and action" (visual intelligence.suny press. 1998)
hijack consensus reality
introduction
from this decentralized definition of reality, i decided to use a batesonian based critique on three articles from the la times, which i purchased when i had the fortunate experience of spending two weeks holiday (or should that be vacation?) in california and mexico. the first two articles will be cross referenced to reveal level zero, level one and level two logical learning types, then after a little bit of groundwork I will attempt to show manifestations of level three logical learning types.you have been warned. i also intend to make generous use of hypertext, for the simple fact that hypertext rocks.
images
i have linked several relevent images to this html page, primarily because the la times don't allow you to cut and paste articles that are more than 14 days old and being as stubborn as i am, i was unwilling to pay the two dollars for each article. consntly i have scanned in the three articles, they are,as follows..,
israel will declare peace process over if violence persists , page 1, 9th october 2000
15 000 in manhattan show their anger at palestinians, page9. 13th october 2000
peru's unshackled media take first steps toward free press, page 5, 13th october 2000
zero learning
firstly, there must be some sort of acknowledgement that strictly speaking, defining level zero (or hard-wired/closed, static learning) in this particular context is problematic in itself. the system of information flow is not completely self-encapsulated, due to the avaliability of a letters page on page 11 of the newspaper or even a telephone contact number, where the public can engage in a dialogue (of sorts) with the newspaper without any prior comitment to the newspaper. the content of the information to reveal zero learning is irrelevent (or possibly generic). it can manifest itself as the simple transfer of information within a fixed circuit (or loop) with minimal responsive change. a good (but not definite) example of this would be a person that reads the la times every day, at more or less the same time, in more or less the same sequence with the same (minimal change in ) response. it is likely that this example started with a learning one response, but as soon as dogmatism creeps in to our worldviews or belief systems are formed, zero learning rears it's ugly head. (no overt response, subservience to hierachy, paradigm protection, secondary education system in britain)
learning one
this is where the fun starts
my intepretation of level one leads to the conclusion that the keyword here is CONTEXT. in this particular case, the acknowledgement of where the information comes from, and the metamessage that arrives with the information (or signal) classifying it.......so.....
firstly i feel it is better to explain the position of the la times within all this to form a context (of sorts). the la times is part of LATS( the los angleles times syndicate), which in turn controls 3000 print publications in 100 countries all over the world, including selling approximately 1 100 000 copies of the latimes each day for 50 cents (about 30 p) ,more comprehensive information is here. LATS is owned by the times- mirror company (since june 2000) making it the only media company in the world with interests in television, newspaper and interactive media that is capable of reaching 80 percent of all household in america, it also has an interesting socio-historical past. without doubt it is a true media multi-national with economic (and consequently political) interests worldwide, combined with an unparalleled use of both horizontal and vertical economic intergration to regulate every level of production and distribution.
in simple (almost reductionist terms) the main agenda of the vast majority of multi national corporations, in all their manifestations is to make money. not to inform the public, not to serve the public, not to tell the public what is happening in the world. unfortunately i do not have the time or the scope to go into detail of why I beleive this is so, although i will use the chomsky propaganda model to highlight some of the flaws(or bias')that are generally prevailent in information received in this particular kind of context. a different context with the same propaganda model can also be viewed. basically the latimes is corporation that sells a product. the product is not the newspaper itself, but is the audience. products have to be sold to the market (in this context the audience), by other corporations. corporations sell audiences to other corporations. in the case of the elite media, it's big business. a very obvious (but suprisingly underdeveloped) hypothesis would be to ask if the information is biased (or slanted) to reflect and serve the interests of the buyers and sellers, the institutions and the power structures that are around them. (common sense ?)
"Communication research has evolved as a branch of functionalist sociology, for which the question of social integration (e.g through the dissemination of a'central value system' throughout the entire social fabric) is the main concern"
(living room wars. Ien Ang . Routledge.1996)
basically, when you are paying for information a relationship is engineered between the two (or more ) parties concerned, the continuation of which is actively encouraged (for the very survival of at least one of the aforementioned parties concerned) possibly through a metamessage that is encapsulated either subconciously or consciously witthin that information, normally containing somesort of ideological bias.
using the propaganda model, it would be fair to say that a newspaper such as the latimes, with regards to independent reporting, is terribly restricted by the political and economic shackles it has self-imposed. it is tightly integrated into the banking system of north america through credits, loans and movement of information (capital) into other foreign markets usually containing american commercial and value messages. the fact that advertising pays such a major role in the sustainability of such a mass-produced media product works as a mechanism to weaken the media that is not dependent on 'market forces' (advertising)(re: daily herald, britain in 1967). also much of the information within the newspaper is (apparently) from 'official' sources, officals have 'facts' and reporters get them. commonly held opinions are then propagated and promoted, some eventually recorded as 'official history' whatever that may be. sometimes flak or negative responses to the media are allowed to enter the system of exchange, but usually these are financed by the very same companies, usually once again serving the interests of power.
very occasionaly this symbolic power (the manipulation of codes) is apparent, a good example would be the gulf war in 1991, when after a short term, the official reason for the war (liberation of the iraqi people from an 'evil' dictator (saddam hussain) did not tie in with the generally agreed public consensus which was that the war was primarily instigated to regulate control of oil supply from iraq.
"In the gulf war, people believe they were seeing reality unfolding before them instead of understanding that they were only seeing a version of events, primarily because no intermediary was immediately visible. In part precipitated by a public relations firm on behalf of a client, in part controlled by political and military motives, and in part filtered by networks on their drive to create 'the proper mindset'for reception of commercials, the images which emerged were both less accurate and less informative than people suspected. As a result, viewers came to feel that they were indeed in a position to make informed political judgements"
(visual intelligence.suny press. 1998)
in conclusion, the context is undeniably economically and consequently politically motivated (or is that the other way round?) with the extreme possibility of 'central values' being incorperated within that contextual information. in the words of adam smith, 'the vile maxim of the masters' where the principal architects of power will be attended to.(context)
learning two
this is loosely defined within the article as 'discrimination between contexts' or information regarding a group or class of events. i guess could be defined as a fine tuning, or self-acknowledgement of the processes learnt at learnig 1 and learning when and how to apply learning one logical types.
firstly a little context about the two leading protagonists in the first two articles, the plalestinians and the isralis. jewish immigration to the holy land (jerusalem) began in the 1880's with a marked increase just before the onset of the second world war, due to the numbers of jews persecuted in germany. palestine, which was then a british mandated territory which stretched from lebanon down to egypt, with it's eastern and western borders dictated by the meditarranean and the dead sea, respectivley. in 1947 the british gave up it's mandate and although the palestinians rejected the idea, the foundation state of israel was decalred in may 1948. in 1949 the israli's extended the area given to them by the UN. an interactive history of the dispute can be found here from the start until the present day together with a host of links. to put this into a temporal context, the palestinians, after thousands of years of autonomy have in the last 50yrs or so been forcibly made (primarily by the UN) to give over half of their land to the israli's. it would be academically unprofessional to take sides, but from a strictly historical perspective, there seems to be a lot of ambiguity in the situation.
the first article is titled "israel will declare peace process over if violence persists" . even the very linguistic structure of the title suggest a bias towards israel, this reinforced in the sub-heading "tanks roll into position as jews begin solemn yom kippur observance" of course in this context the isralis are generally jews, and only the isralis have tanks...so they are going to be in two places at once eh ? ambiguity and disinformation is once again the order of the day here. the dispute is said to have taken a "qualitative" leap with the capture of 3 israli troops (even though by this time 80 palestinians, including an 11 year old boy) had been killed in the previous 11 days. as a propaganda model study there is an extremely transparent undercurrent here, with a strong dichtomization towards israel..
the second article "15 000 people show their anger at the palestinians" adheres to the previous articles narrative and emotional projection, almost flawlessly. "those of us that reject hatred and fanaticism...finally recognise yasser arafat for what he is- ignorant, devious and unworthy of trust" claims a nobel-prize winner (!!). the real soundbite quote here, however, is "the peace process is vital, but it will never work if you engage in the fiction that there is a moral equivalent between the palestine liberation organization and the state of israel .there is not ". this is incredulous. how can one one person's or group of individual's worldview or ideology be not as morally acceptable as another's ? who defines the boundaries of morality, the bouindaries of discourse ? comparing the two articles a clear pattern has emerged, the palastinians have been satanized and the israli's quite blatantly humanised.
"The models of the universe which our culture has employed influence our very language, and the structure of our thought, indeed the very constitution of our logic, is seen in the architecture of today¹s computers. The western model of the universe is political, being derived from engineeriong or architecture. All Western thought is based on the idea that the universe is a construct, and even when we get rid of the idea of the constructor of the personal god we continue to think of the world in terms of it being a machine" the tao of philosophy Alan Watts . Eden Grove . 1996
infact, regarding binuristic linguistics, it has NEVER been stated in the maistream american press that "america invaded vietnam" (using those words). the methods of contol are all-evading, right down to the very structure of our language. we have been trapped by our language, this reinforced by our (western?) bio-cultural instinctual reidue regarding the fear of death, promoting the idea that there are such concepts as closure and finitude. fear is the mechanism of blindness for the 'bewildered herd" (walter lipmann) , the 90 percent of the population that have no real dealings with the direction of their own lives.
but why israel good, palestine bad ?
this is simply a question of client-based privalige, money again, or rather the exchange of money, this hypothesis can be clearly verified by a simple academic study into contemporary localized conflicts (including civil wars), focusing on the mass media representation of moral values within similar contexts, also the role of the us within the united nations structure , especially it's use of veto power.
since it's inception in 1948, israel has engaged in free trade with north america. palestine (or what was formally palestine) hasn't been directly involved in business with the north americans.
israel has amongst other things......
with the help of a CIA subsidy, maintained and ruled the motabi tribe in zaire.
helped suppor general somoza by selling him arms (from america)...to get around a trade embargo.
assisted the us in genocide in both guatemala and nicaragua.
"in these efforts , israel functioned within the extraordinary terrorist network that the united states designed, particularly during the reagan years, including taiwan, sauidi arabia, south africa, argentine neo-nazis, and an intricate system of arms suppliers, military trainers and funders worldwide. at the same time, israel forged close links with the u.s intelligence and the pentagon, both in the military production and in the testing of advanced weapons under battlefield conditions or against defenceless targets, again providing valuble services for u.s power. israel has also offered to the united states a form of export promotion as grants of arms to israel helped stimulate huge arms sales to the arab states, recycling petrodollars to u.s industry". world orders old and new . noam chomsky . columbia. 1996
firstly, i would like to reinforce i am not pro-israel or anti-palestinian (or vice-versa). this is a media analysis, not a test of moral integrity. i support no ideology. i also categorically state that all media is a form of representation.
in conclusion, from the cross referencing of the two articles within a larger theoretical framework,the positive representation of a groups morality has an direct relationhip to the ideological compatability of that group to that of the producer of that representation.
(context of context)
additional stuff
"peru's unshackled media take first steps toward free press" was another article that i found in the 13th october issue of the latimes. when the media talks of 'reinforcing democracy' and claiming to have 'opened the only window of reality during the troubled election', it always makes me feel a little cold. i did a little initial research into the 'commitee to protect journalists' , the next thing i then did was to find out who finances this committe, it read like a who's who of multi-national corperations. the 'enemies' top 10 is well worth a giggle too. (and it does include the peruvian prime minister too).
the television station in the article, canal n is owned by el comercio, a peruvian newspaper, that has also had a long and varied history . canal n has been operational for about a year. it has also been float ed on the peruvian stock exchange , and although i found out that telefonica, one of a couple ofmulti-national corporations was also interested in buying it, i spent nearly a week without no real concrete 'evidence' of who was the owner of the company. here's some various links, they include arms dealing, drug - running and obviously some jigh-end politcal corruption. enjoy .
http://www.cpj.org/protests/00ltrs/Peru07april00pl.html
http://www.italian.it/isf/ifex925.htm
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/ii/ii042000.html
http://www.freelori.org/news/00sep14_reuters.html
poor perople terrorists.
rich people governments
learning three
partytime.
"each one of us has thus an universe of his own, but it is the same universe for each one as soon as it includes all possible experience. this implies the extension of conciousness to include all other conciousness"
liber al vel legis. aliester crowley . 1904 .
space is the total possibilites of every kind.
hadit is the point which has experience of these possibilites.
download full aliester crowley texts here
the universe (or what is generally agreed to be the universe) , can be traced back to humble beginnings approximately 15 billion years ago. this can be rectified because scientists have been able to measure the differences in wavelengths of background radiation, that was generated at the start/birth of the universe (the so-called big bang), which if einstein's e=mc2 equation still holds, dictates that this was consisted of material of infinite density. before this point, it is not known if time existed or even if there was any form of cosmic/divine intervention, all we know is that the universe as we know it, is in a present state of eternal inflation, that can be chased back to the primeval detonation of the big bang. reality giving birth to itself.
"look at money. inflation, that is the crisis, agreed . but something else is far more disturbing or, better, more astounding: the mass of floating money globally encircling the earth. it is the only really artificial satellite. money has necome a pure artefact of a celestial movement, of a momentary exchangeability. money has finally found its proper place, one far more unusual than in the stock exchange:the earth orbit, in which it rises and falls like an artificial sun".
the anorexic ruins . looking back at the end of the world . jean baudrillard
nothing is made from nothing.
with regards to organic life, and it's origins. it extremely likely that over the course of the the last couple of million years, biologically interesting elements, such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and silicon have been combined with extremely high temperatures and/or nuclear fusion to form the building blocks of all known life forms, dna. again cosmic or divine intervention as non-scienti fic it may sound cannot be ruled inadmissable. from studying all the major religions, such as shamanism, gnosticism ,tantra, taoism, sufism and even christianity, it seems to be extremely feasible historically that we are descended from the 'skies'. a common interpretation of the tibetan book of the dead, one of the oldest complete texts in human history is that we are descended from the stars, specifically sirius the dog star. a similar narritive is readily accesible to anyone who has a keen interest in the archetypal images present in alchemy. whichever way you interpret the origins of life and the earth, every living organism is without doubt from the same source, wherever (or however) that may be. no suprises here mr bates.
the absolute rule of the state shall be a function of the absolute liberty of each individual will.
Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law
there is no wrong
no right
up/down
loss of identity
laughing at religion and politics
model agnosticism
obserever-created reality
jung
crowley
theater, ritual and ceremony
ethnomethology
reich
memes
media theory
culture jamming
alchemy
dna
gaia
leary
neuro-linguistic programming
joyce
einstein
there is no doubt of the economic success of the 'american project' . in human terms it is quite possibly the most adventerous and non-ephemeral socio-political construction in history. the world, of course is nothing but image. the world as image is a normative concept planning and implementing a global society. a world filled with excrescential objects, a world of abject waste and over-production.
the human species is not and will never be a permanent fixture on this planet.
time is infinite.
every number is infinite.
abrahadabra.
aum. ah.
in conclusion. it is now 2.30 am and this project
has
to
be
in
tommorow...
so...
level one shows the political and economic frameworks, with examles of transparency. level two shows the pattern of similar contexts throughout the course of history. level three shows convergence on a point of singlularity and ultimately luminosity, the point being the universal destination for the whole world at the end of a historically-written linear narritive.
over and out
transmission ends 2.49 p.m 7th october 2000
THIS IS ME ARTHUR
FULL HYPERTEXT VERSION AT http://plectic.com/advthrt.html
rockin from decentral brothers.......
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 17 2006, 03:58 AM)
If the 'spire' consisted of perimeter columns only then it is even more unlikely that it would be able to stand alone for very long even if it were in pristine condition. It would have absolutely no lateral support in one dimension(perpendicular to the wall from which the columns originate). In its original state it received such lateral support by being attached to the core via the trusses.
Of course it was also NOT in pristine condition either, the acts that tore the rest of the building from around it could have twisted this remanant, could have cracked bolts etc. It is highly unlikely that this remanant was in great shape.
Ever play the game Jenga? You remove blocks one by one and the person who takes away a block that finally causes the towers to fall , loses. Often a block is removed later in the game and the tower remains standing but falls before the next player even makes a move to take out another block. In this case the tower is unstable and similarily the 'spire' was unstable and fell quickly as it succumbed to buckling forces.
This is a completely separate issue. If the issue was "Why did the spire collapse", then I would not describe this as "uber weird".
It was the telescoping aspect, and most of all, the complete disintegration into powder, non-explosively, that is uber weird.
I defy you to powderize any standing piece of metal, in the space of 3 seconds, using any conventional method. No, you may not use explosives or drop the metal in hydrocloric, or other acid.
If you claim that the tower, in spite of the obvious visible evidence, did not turn into powder, then please tell me where the top was, every tenth of a second for the first 3 seconds of collapse, so that I can see the top, also. Standing 60 stories tall, we can easily calculate free fall distance in that 3 seconds, so we know that the top must be at or above this point, at any time.
You cannot do this.
Of course it was also NOT in pristine condition either, the acts that tore the rest of the building from around it could have twisted this remanant, could have cracked bolts etc. It is highly unlikely that this remanant was in great shape.
Ever play the game Jenga? You remove blocks one by one and the person who takes away a block that finally causes the towers to fall , loses. Often a block is removed later in the game and the tower remains standing but falls before the next player even makes a move to take out another block. In this case the tower is unstable and similarily the 'spire' was unstable and fell quickly as it succumbed to buckling forces.
This is a completely separate issue. If the issue was "Why did the spire collapse", then I would not describe this as "uber weird".
It was the telescoping aspect, and most of all, the complete disintegration into powder, non-explosively, that is uber weird.
I defy you to powderize any standing piece of metal, in the space of 3 seconds, using any conventional method. No, you may not use explosives or drop the metal in hydrocloric, or other acid.
If you claim that the tower, in spite of the obvious visible evidence, did not turn into powder, then please tell me where the top was, every tenth of a second for the first 3 seconds of collapse, so that I can see the top, also. Standing 60 stories tall, we can easily calculate free fall distance in that 3 seconds, so we know that the top must be at or above this point, at any time.
You cannot do this.
QUOTE (newton+Jan 17 2006, 06:45 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 17 2006, 06:10 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Jan 17 2006, 05:11 AM)
partially-vaporised aluminum dust COULD be the shinyness.
apparently, there was a fair amount of iron and aluminum in the fine dust which blanketed the streets up to SIX inches in depth, and up to THREE inches as far as six blocks away.
i will try and watch the video again, tonight, and think about it.
The people covered with dust in the picture at
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/index.html
don't look too shiny.....
(yes, I know, they're not in the sun)
i just started thinking about vapourised metal. it's new to me.
would tiny metal flakes fall at the same rate as tiny gpysum, concrete, human, plastic and wood flakes? i think of those little sparkles that get everywhere. would metal not pick up an attractive static charge better than the other particulates? aluminum would vapourise much quicker than steel, i imagine. there should be some seperation of particulates by mass, heat and charge, creating layers of different sized chunks.
i don't know. the dust had all that material ground up into an inches thick dust that blanketed the street with inches deep dust. it seemed pretty uniform, from what i've read (admittedly not much, because of the MASSIVE COVER-UP!) and seen.
one report i read the day after hunter s. thompson was suicided disappeared. he claimed to have definitive proof of the 'official conspiracy theory'.
he was also named as the man who filmed the brutal rape/murder of a young boy as per 'the franklin coverup'. 'they' use doubles for blackmail and protection (see 'osama'(the nose) from the 'confession video', and 'saddam' from the trial (the teeth). false flags, nick berg(english voices, prison background, no spatter).
so many dark, disturbing questions. and the sad part is, we are trying to make a definitive analysis with disassociated data.
i actually don't think they look too shiny. it sure disappeared fast, whatever it was.
reality sure ain't what it used to be. it sucks to know.
The more evil abounds, the more we should cling to the Light. Such is my belief. As my godmother used to say, "Live every day like it's your last".
If an individual cannot deal with this information without becoming fearful or depressed, they may well be better off not focussing on it at all. I cannot, however, recommend complete denial, which I can only conceive of as happening out of fear. Denying evil gives it strength.
And this is from someone who has no problem in believing he is seeing metal turned to powder.
The power of seeing what you WANT to see.
Arthur
Could it be that the 'strange collapse of the spire' concept comes from a standard CIA disinfo toolkit issued to all agents? The instructions might read:
MULTI PURPOSE DISINFORMATION CONCEPT
Use this in 2 ways:
1) To create silly conspiracy theories which will inevitably be debunked.
2) To promote the official theory by reinterpreting the meaning of (1).
If your looking for employment just contact Arthur or Schneibster.
apparently, there was a fair amount of iron and aluminum in the fine dust which blanketed the streets up to SIX inches in depth, and up to THREE inches as far as six blocks away.
i will try and watch the video again, tonight, and think about it.
The people covered with dust in the picture at
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/index.html
don't look too shiny.....
(yes, I know, they're not in the sun)
i just started thinking about vapourised metal. it's new to me.
would tiny metal flakes fall at the same rate as tiny gpysum, concrete, human, plastic and wood flakes? i think of those little sparkles that get everywhere. would metal not pick up an attractive static charge better than the other particulates? aluminum would vapourise much quicker than steel, i imagine. there should be some seperation of particulates by mass, heat and charge, creating layers of different sized chunks.
i don't know. the dust had all that material ground up into an inches thick dust that blanketed the street with inches deep dust. it seemed pretty uniform, from what i've read (admittedly not much, because of the MASSIVE COVER-UP!) and seen.
one report i read the day after hunter s. thompson was suicided disappeared. he claimed to have definitive proof of the 'official conspiracy theory'.
he was also named as the man who filmed the brutal rape/murder of a young boy as per 'the franklin coverup'. 'they' use doubles for blackmail and protection (see 'osama'(the nose) from the 'confession video', and 'saddam' from the trial (the teeth). false flags, nick berg(english voices, prison background, no spatter).
so many dark, disturbing questions. and the sad part is, we are trying to make a definitive analysis with disassociated data.
i actually don't think they look too shiny. it sure disappeared fast, whatever it was.
reality sure ain't what it used to be. it sucks to know.
The more evil abounds, the more we should cling to the Light. Such is my belief. As my godmother used to say, "Live every day like it's your last".
If an individual cannot deal with this information without becoming fearful or depressed, they may well be better off not focussing on it at all. I cannot, however, recommend complete denial, which I can only conceive of as happening out of fear. Denying evil gives it strength.
Metemars.
Try some LOGIC.
There were approx 1.5 million pounds of material carted off that site. About 1/3 of it was steel.
Clearly not a lot of "powderization" was going on.
Fair?
If "powderization" had something to do with the collapse, what was the point of "powderizing" this piece which OBVIOUSLY could not stand for long.
Fair?
No one has postulated ANY EXISTING mechanism that could "powderize" the spire.
Fair?
So, IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT SOME OTHER FORCE CAUSED IT TO COLLAPSE?
POSSIBLY FASTER THAN FREE FALL?
YOU KNOW, LIKE A SECTION OF THE TOWER FALLING OVER ON THE BASE OF THE SPIRE (OUT OF SIGHT IN THE VIDEO) AND PULLING IT DOWN?
If you watch the video it not only is going down but moving off to the right.
Seems like another force might have been at play.
To me this is MUCH MORE LIKELY (or some other similar, but mundane explanation) than some ULTRA EXOTIC UNOBTANIUM RAY.
Arthur
Try some LOGIC.
There were approx 1.5 million pounds of material carted off that site. About 1/3 of it was steel.
Clearly not a lot of "powderization" was going on.
Fair?
If "powderization" had something to do with the collapse, what was the point of "powderizing" this piece which OBVIOUSLY could not stand for long.
Fair?
No one has postulated ANY EXISTING mechanism that could "powderize" the spire.
Fair?
So, IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT SOME OTHER FORCE CAUSED IT TO COLLAPSE?
POSSIBLY FASTER THAN FREE FALL?
YOU KNOW, LIKE A SECTION OF THE TOWER FALLING OVER ON THE BASE OF THE SPIRE (OUT OF SIGHT IN THE VIDEO) AND PULLING IT DOWN?
If you watch the video it not only is going down but moving off to the right.
Seems like another force might have been at play.
To me this is MUCH MORE LIKELY (or some other similar, but mundane explanation) than some ULTRA EXOTIC UNOBTANIUM RAY.
Arthur
QUOTE (frater plecticus 2+Jan 17 2006, 09:17 AM)
I've been banned from here until 23rd january.
You know, banning just isn't what it used to be.
Arthur
You know, banning just isn't what it used to be.
Arthur
Frater Plecticus - just out of curiosity did they give a reason? If so, what?
Seems odd to me that you should be 'sent to the corner' in light of some of the shenanigans going on around here.
metamars - see what I mean about availability of accurate info regarding the engineering construction of the design of the towers. The question you pose about 'belts' running around the core should be very simple to find a clear cut answer to...such a simple innocous question.
The 'belts' you refer to are called 'spandrels' if (as they were on the perimeter columns) a flat sheet, or 'beams' If they are 'U' or 'I' shaped.
It is obvious that the inner core columns were joined by these 'belts' which spanned the outer perimeter of the core columns. This is without question being as the core columns were 20 feet or so apart. Obviously then one needs these spandrels or beams upon which to hang the floor trusses between the columns.
I don't have time to do a more in depth search at the moment to confirm (if possible) the exact configuration of these core 'spandrels' or beams, but I believe this a picture of a core 'spandrel/beam/belt'...
This is from a page which I have mentioned before...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
The photo above has been rotated to give a better idea how the connection looked while standing in the towers. The bluish box beam is obviously a central core column. Given the apparent dimensions, I would guess it comes from between the 40th to 80th floor. The rust-colored steel are the core column beams. It appears to me that the one which the worker is cutting would be the core-column beam or spandrel to which the floor trusses were attached.
I assume 'that' because the other 'bent beam' running 90 degrees to the beam being cut is an obvious core beam which supported the floors within the core, and, as it doesn't appear that the core column has a beam which 'follows-thru' from that...(the inner beam ends at a 'T' with the core column instead of having another beam extending from the 'spandrel/beam')...then this would not be a column from the interior of the core, but rather one of the central core outer columns. The words sound a little confusing, but I think the picture makes it much clearer.
As best I can tell this 'belt' beam is a 'U' channel beam which matches with the FEMA diagram of the U-beam to which the floor trusses were attached...(Although much larger in scale that the deceptive FEMA diagram)... [see the small schematic diagram in the center]...
I have also blown up the spire photo to the point where it begins to 'pixcelate' {sp?}.
As can be seen, I think it's pretty clear that it's NOT the exterior of the building (NOT the perimeter columns).
(see larger pic at this page...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
It is STILL nonsense that this standing portion of the core is 'proof' that there were no basement explosions, but I don't have time to get into the explaination of WHY that is nonsense right now.
I'll try to address it later after work tonight.
Later.
Seems odd to me that you should be 'sent to the corner' in light of some of the shenanigans going on around here.
metamars - see what I mean about availability of accurate info regarding the engineering construction of the design of the towers. The question you pose about 'belts' running around the core should be very simple to find a clear cut answer to...such a simple innocous question.
The 'belts' you refer to are called 'spandrels' if (as they were on the perimeter columns) a flat sheet, or 'beams' If they are 'U' or 'I' shaped.
It is obvious that the inner core columns were joined by these 'belts' which spanned the outer perimeter of the core columns. This is without question being as the core columns were 20 feet or so apart. Obviously then one needs these spandrels or beams upon which to hang the floor trusses between the columns.
I don't have time to do a more in depth search at the moment to confirm (if possible) the exact configuration of these core 'spandrels' or beams, but I believe this a picture of a core 'spandrel/beam/belt'...
This is from a page which I have mentioned before...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
The photo above has been rotated to give a better idea how the connection looked while standing in the towers. The bluish box beam is obviously a central core column. Given the apparent dimensions, I would guess it comes from between the 40th to 80th floor. The rust-colored steel are the core column beams. It appears to me that the one which the worker is cutting would be the core-column beam or spandrel to which the floor trusses were attached.
I assume 'that' because the other 'bent beam' running 90 degrees to the beam being cut is an obvious core beam which supported the floors within the core, and, as it doesn't appear that the core column has a beam which 'follows-thru' from that...(the inner beam ends at a 'T' with the core column instead of having another beam extending from the 'spandrel/beam')...then this would not be a column from the interior of the core, but rather one of the central core outer columns. The words sound a little confusing, but I think the picture makes it much clearer.
As best I can tell this 'belt' beam is a 'U' channel beam which matches with the FEMA diagram of the U-beam to which the floor trusses were attached...(Although much larger in scale that the deceptive FEMA diagram)... [see the small schematic diagram in the center]...
I have also blown up the spire photo to the point where it begins to 'pixcelate' {sp?}.
As can be seen, I think it's pretty clear that it's NOT the exterior of the building (NOT the perimeter columns).
(see larger pic at this page...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
It is STILL nonsense that this standing portion of the core is 'proof' that there were no basement explosions, but I don't have time to get into the explaination of WHY that is nonsense right now.
I'll try to address it later after work tonight.
Later.
PS... Gordon
Lots of in-depth info on truss seat connections here (FEMA)...
pdf...
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxB.pdf
html...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC_apndxB.htm
Lots of in-depth info on truss seat connections here (FEMA)...
pdf...
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxB.pdf
html...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi.../WTC_apndxB.htm
I don't think it's 65 stories but it looks like 50-60. If it's not the Core it's fooling more than just everyone here who concludes it collapse by fire.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core_collapse.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core_collapse.html
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 17 2006, 04:01 PM)
Frater Plecticus - just out of curiosity did they give a reason? If so, what?
Seems odd to me that you should be 'sent to the corner' in light of some of the shenanigans going on around here.
metamars - see what I mean about availability of accurate info regarding the engineering construction of the design of the towers. The question you pose about 'belts' running around the core should be very simple to find a clear cut answer to...such a simple innocous question.
The 'belts' you refer to are called 'spandrels' if (as they were on the perimeter columns) a flat sheet, or 'beams' If they are 'U' or 'I' shaped.
It is obvious that the inner core columns were joined by these 'belts' which spanned the outer perimeter of the core columns. This is without question being as the core columns were 20 feet or so apart. Obviously then one needs these spandrels or beams upon which to hang the floor trusses between the columns.
I don't have time to do a more in depth search at the moment to confirm (if possible) the exact configuration of these core 'spandrels' or beams, but I believe this a picture of a core 'spandrel/beam/belt'...
This is from a page which I have mentioned before...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
The photo above has been rotated to give a better idea how the connection looked while standing in the towers. The bluish box beam is obviously a central core column. Given the apparent dimensions, I would guess it comes from between the 40th to 80th floor. The rust-colored steel are the core column beams. It appears to me that the one which the worker is cutting would be the core-column beam or spandrel to which the floor trusses were attached.
I assume 'that' because the other 'bent beam' running 90 degrees to the beam being cut is an obvious core beam which supported the floors within the core, and, as it doesn't appear that the core column has a beam which 'follows-thru' from that...(the inner beam ends at a 'T' with the core column instead of having another beam extending from the 'spandrel/beam')...then this would not be a column from the interior of the core, but rather one of the central core outer columns. The words sound a little confusing, but I think the picture makes it much clearer.
As best I can tell this 'belt' beam is a 'U' channel beam which matches with the FEMA diagram of the U-beam to which the floor trusses were attached...(Although much larger in scale that the deceptive FEMA diagram)... [see the small schematic diagram in the center]...
I have also blown up the spire photo to the point where it begins to 'pixcelate' {sp?}.
As can be seen, I think it's pretty clear that it's NOT the exterior of the building (NOT the perimeter columns).
(see larger pic at this page...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
It is STILL nonsense that this standing portion of the core is 'proof' that there were no basement explosions, but I don't have time to get into the explaination of WHY that is nonsense right now.
I'll try to address it later after work tonight.
Later.
I still don't believe that the "clear as mud" picture shows a core, no how, no way. For one thing, when you enlarge something clear as mud, you get - well - enlarged clear as mud.
For another, the shininess clearly suggests highly reflective surfaces. Compare the reflectiveness, through the smoke filled haze, of the "clear as mud" photo to the reflectiveness of the beams that the welder is working on, and which is close-up, AND which is NOT through a smoke filled haze.
No comparison.
Furthermore, the pictures of the steel beams with their fireproofing on also point to low reflectivity.
(FWIW, the picture we're discussing looks fake, anyway. Since when does smoke look like this, even if a bit out of focus? Dininfo, perhaps, to buttress pancake theories?)
As for the spire photos that I discussed just previously (by sighting along the right edge, etc.), I've seen no convincing rebuttal based on their own merits/demerits.
Seems odd to me that you should be 'sent to the corner' in light of some of the shenanigans going on around here.
metamars - see what I mean about availability of accurate info regarding the engineering construction of the design of the towers. The question you pose about 'belts' running around the core should be very simple to find a clear cut answer to...such a simple innocous question.
The 'belts' you refer to are called 'spandrels' if (as they were on the perimeter columns) a flat sheet, or 'beams' If they are 'U' or 'I' shaped.
It is obvious that the inner core columns were joined by these 'belts' which spanned the outer perimeter of the core columns. This is without question being as the core columns were 20 feet or so apart. Obviously then one needs these spandrels or beams upon which to hang the floor trusses between the columns.
I don't have time to do a more in depth search at the moment to confirm (if possible) the exact configuration of these core 'spandrels' or beams, but I believe this a picture of a core 'spandrel/beam/belt'...
This is from a page which I have mentioned before...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
The photo above has been rotated to give a better idea how the connection looked while standing in the towers. The bluish box beam is obviously a central core column. Given the apparent dimensions, I would guess it comes from between the 40th to 80th floor. The rust-colored steel are the core column beams. It appears to me that the one which the worker is cutting would be the core-column beam or spandrel to which the floor trusses were attached.
I assume 'that' because the other 'bent beam' running 90 degrees to the beam being cut is an obvious core beam which supported the floors within the core, and, as it doesn't appear that the core column has a beam which 'follows-thru' from that...(the inner beam ends at a 'T' with the core column instead of having another beam extending from the 'spandrel/beam')...then this would not be a column from the interior of the core, but rather one of the central core outer columns. The words sound a little confusing, but I think the picture makes it much clearer.
As best I can tell this 'belt' beam is a 'U' channel beam which matches with the FEMA diagram of the U-beam to which the floor trusses were attached...(Although much larger in scale that the deceptive FEMA diagram)... [see the small schematic diagram in the center]...
I have also blown up the spire photo to the point where it begins to 'pixcelate' {sp?}.
As can be seen, I think it's pretty clear that it's NOT the exterior of the building (NOT the perimeter columns).
(see larger pic at this page...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
It is STILL nonsense that this standing portion of the core is 'proof' that there were no basement explosions, but I don't have time to get into the explaination of WHY that is nonsense right now.
I'll try to address it later after work tonight.
Later.
I still don't believe that the "clear as mud" picture shows a core, no how, no way. For one thing, when you enlarge something clear as mud, you get - well - enlarged clear as mud.
For another, the shininess clearly suggests highly reflective surfaces. Compare the reflectiveness, through the smoke filled haze, of the "clear as mud" photo to the reflectiveness of the beams that the welder is working on, and which is close-up, AND which is NOT through a smoke filled haze.
No comparison.
Furthermore, the pictures of the steel beams with their fireproofing on also point to low reflectivity.
(FWIW, the picture we're discussing looks fake, anyway. Since when does smoke look like this, even if a bit out of focus? Dininfo, perhaps, to buttress pancake theories?)
As for the spire photos that I discussed just previously (by sighting along the right edge, etc.), I've seen no convincing rebuttal based on their own merits/demerits.
QUOTE
still don't believe that the "clear as mud" picture shows a core, no how, no way.
And this is from someone who has no problem in believing he is seeing metal turned to powder.
The power of seeing what you WANT to see.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
The power of seeing what you WANT to see.
How ironic, that you, amongst all people, would state that.
How ironic, that you, amongst all people, would state that.
Fine Bolt, instead of the official explanation, I'd love to see you produce a COHERENT explanation for the events on 9/11.
Arthur
Arthur
Don't hold your breath, Arthur. bolt hasn't responded to my post on honesty yet, and I'd say that says it all.
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.
Could someone please point me to the link to this video if it shows something different from that below?
I have seen articles which equate the 'spire' with the core columns, eg:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb...f_the_Spire.htm
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=294315643
This is usually advanced as evidence that the core columns mysteriously vapourised. The hypothesis is based on a giant mistake however: the 'spire' which you see in the image (see link above) is actually a portion of the exterior cladding.
The illusion that this spire is part of the core is created by a quite mischeivous use of photos from different perspectives:
Can you see that the perspective is different in each of the four images? I can't tell exactly whether it is just the zoom magnitude or whether the angle of view has also changed - which would make sense if the image were taken from a helicopter.
I have always been highly skeptical of the 'strange collapse of the spire' as a conspiracy argument. Seemed like deliberate disinformation to me...
It is curious and really quite interesting if people are now using the same mischeivous argument as proof of the official theory.
Could it be that the 'strange collapse of the spire' concept comes from a standard CIA disinfo toolkit issued to all agents? The instructions might read:
MULTI PURPOSE DISINFORMATION CONCEPT
Use this in 2 ways:
1) To create silly conspiracy theories which will inevitably be debunked.
2) To promote the official theory by reinterpreting the meaning of (1).
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.
Could someone please point me to the link to this video if it shows something different from that below?
I have seen articles which equate the 'spire' with the core columns, eg:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb...f_the_Spire.htm
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=294315643
This is usually advanced as evidence that the core columns mysteriously vapourised. The hypothesis is based on a giant mistake however: the 'spire' which you see in the image (see link above) is actually a portion of the exterior cladding.
The illusion that this spire is part of the core is created by a quite mischeivous use of photos from different perspectives:
Can you see that the perspective is different in each of the four images? I can't tell exactly whether it is just the zoom magnitude or whether the angle of view has also changed - which would make sense if the image were taken from a helicopter.
I have always been highly skeptical of the 'strange collapse of the spire' as a conspiracy argument. Seemed like deliberate disinformation to me...
It is curious and really quite interesting if people are now using the same mischeivous argument as proof of the official theory.
Could it be that the 'strange collapse of the spire' concept comes from a standard CIA disinfo toolkit issued to all agents? The instructions might read:
MULTI PURPOSE DISINFORMATION CONCEPT
Use this in 2 ways:
1) To create silly conspiracy theories which will inevitably be debunked.
2) To promote the official theory by reinterpreting the meaning of (1).
QUOTE (hereward+Jan 17 2006, 05:27 PM)
Could it be that the 'strange collapse of the spire' concept comes from a standard CIA disinfo toolkit issued to all agents? The instructions might read:
MULTI PURPOSE DISINFORMATION CONCEPT
Use this in 2 ways:
1) To create silly conspiracy theories which will inevitably be debunked.
2) To promote the official theory by reinterpreting the meaning of (1).
If your looking for employment just contact Arthur or Schneibster.
Steven E. Jones
A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11:
Reason, Publicity, and Reaction
by Victoria Ashley
Version 1.0, Jan. 14, 2006
Introduction
This paper reviews and compares some of the initial media coverage and criticisms of BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones' research paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? In his paper, Jones calls for an investigation of the World Trade Center skyscrapers' collapses that seriously considers the hypothesis of controlled demolition. The decision of a professor of science to come forward with such a proposal is unprecedented, as is the story's coverage by a mainstream news program on cable TV: MSNBC's Situation with Tucker Carlson. The closest precedent in the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement was the CSPAN-2 coverage of theology professor David Ray Griffin's speech, 9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond?. Both Jones and Griffin have added considerable credibility to the independent investigation of 9/11 through their scholarly approaches. In particular, Steven Jones brings to bear his 20 years of experience and peer-reviewed research in the field of physics.
Interestingly, a number of well-funded and slick propaganda campaigns purporting to expose 9/11 truth have had little or no impact in mainstream venues (except to act as magnets for disparaging reviews). In contrast, Jones' simply crafted paper received a genuine and unbiased hearing from local media, and surprisingly respectful coverage on a mainstream cable program. Thus, Jones' efforts introduced credible challenges to the official story to large new audiences of critically thinking people.
Jones' work contrasts with the propagandistic productions which rely on theatrical antics, hip sound tracks, and sleights of hand. The style of such productions is mirrored in their content -- a mixture of sensational claims (pods, missiles and aircraft other than commercial jets impacting the buildings) mixed with real unanswered questions. Such unsupported claims, while designed to excite naive viewers, are inevitably debunked with time, and thus serve to inoculate the public against taking 9/11 truth efforts seriously.
The thesis of controlled demolition -- the focus of paper -- is a key component in exposing the truth of the 9/11 attacks since, unlike most of the other aspects of 9/11, one cannot suggest that a building demolition was a mistake or a surprise: someone had to have intentionally planned and executed it, by definition. Accepting the demolition thesis leads inescapably to the conclusion that the 9/11 events were orchestrated by people who had the access and means to rig the buildings -- i.e: insiders. In this first paper by Jones, he does not claim to know who could have rigged the buildings, but limits his focus to the collapse events, end products, and critique of the official analyses.
In this paper I will review coverage by both mainstream print/TV news and Internet news sites. I will also examine some recent propagandistic productions in relation to Jones' work.
Table of Contents
* Steven Jones' Paper
* Early Publicity
* Other Media Republishing the Story
* Tucker Carlson's The Situation
* Greg Szymanski's Arctic Beacon
* Loose Change
* Holmgren ad Hominems
* The Big Tent
Steven E. Jones: A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11
A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11:
Reason, Publicity, and Reaction
by Victoria Ashley
Version 1.0, Jan. 14, 2006
Introduction
This paper reviews and compares some of the initial media coverage and criticisms of BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones' research paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? In his paper, Jones calls for an investigation of the World Trade Center skyscrapers' collapses that seriously considers the hypothesis of controlled demolition. The decision of a professor of science to come forward with such a proposal is unprecedented, as is the story's coverage by a mainstream news program on cable TV: MSNBC's Situation with Tucker Carlson. The closest precedent in the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement was the CSPAN-2 coverage of theology professor David Ray Griffin's speech, 9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond?. Both Jones and Griffin have added considerable credibility to the independent investigation of 9/11 through their scholarly approaches. In particular, Steven Jones brings to bear his 20 years of experience and peer-reviewed research in the field of physics.
Interestingly, a number of well-funded and slick propaganda campaigns purporting to expose 9/11 truth have had little or no impact in mainstream venues (except to act as magnets for disparaging reviews). In contrast, Jones' simply crafted paper received a genuine and unbiased hearing from local media, and surprisingly respectful coverage on a mainstream cable program. Thus, Jones' efforts introduced credible challenges to the official story to large new audiences of critically thinking people.
Jones' work contrasts with the propagandistic productions which rely on theatrical antics, hip sound tracks, and sleights of hand. The style of such productions is mirrored in their content -- a mixture of sensational claims (pods, missiles and aircraft other than commercial jets impacting the buildings) mixed with real unanswered questions. Such unsupported claims, while designed to excite naive viewers, are inevitably debunked with time, and thus serve to inoculate the public against taking 9/11 truth efforts seriously.
The thesis of controlled demolition -- the focus of paper -- is a key component in exposing the truth of the 9/11 attacks since, unlike most of the other aspects of 9/11, one cannot suggest that a building demolition was a mistake or a surprise: someone had to have intentionally planned and executed it, by definition. Accepting the demolition thesis leads inescapably to the conclusion that the 9/11 events were orchestrated by people who had the access and means to rig the buildings -- i.e: insiders. In this first paper by Jones, he does not claim to know who could have rigged the buildings, but limits his focus to the collapse events, end products, and critique of the official analyses.
In this paper I will review coverage by both mainstream print/TV news and Internet news sites. I will also examine some recent propagandistic productions in relation to Jones' work.
Table of Contents
* Steven Jones' Paper
* Early Publicity
* Other Media Republishing the Story
* Tucker Carlson's The Situation
* Greg Szymanski's Arctic Beacon
* Loose Change
* Holmgren ad Hominems
* The Big Tent
Steven E. Jones: A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11
QUOTE (hereward+Jan 18 2006, 01:27 AM)
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.
Could someone please point me to the link to this video if it shows something different from that below?
I have seen articles which equate the 'spire' with the core columns, eg:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb...f_the_Spire.htm
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=294315643
This is usually advanced as evidence that the core columns mysteriously vapourised. The hypothesis is based on a giant mistake however: the 'spire' which you see in the image (see link above) is actually a portion of the exterior cladding.
The illusion that this spire is part of the core is created by a quite mischeivous use of photos from different perspectives:
Can you see that the perspective is different in each of the four images? I can't tell exactly whether it is just the zoom magnitude or whether the angle of view has also changed - which would make sense if the image were taken from a helicopter.
I have always been highly skeptical of the 'strange collapse of the spire' as a conspiracy argument. Seemed like deliberate disinformation to me...
It is curious and really quite interesting if people are now using the same mischeivous argument as proof of the official theory.
Could it be that the 'strange collapse of the spire' concept comes from a standard CIA disinfo toolkit issued to all agents? The instructions might read:
MULTI PURPOSE DISINFORMATION CONCEPT
Use this in 2 ways:
1) To create silly conspiracy theories which will inevitably be debunked.
2) To promote the official theory by reinterpreting the meaning of (1).
I can easily rebut all the versions of "well, it just fell down" to "well, it got knocked down". Just because I don't have much time or inclination to point out the obvious, doesn't mean a rebuttal is not desirable at all. It serves a purpose in underscoring just how desperate popes can be to explain away what anybody with decent eyesight can clearly see.
The one "explanation" I can't so easily rebut is the "well, all the pictures and videos are fakes", since I really don't know where all these pictures and videos come from. Furthermore, I don't have the time, resources, or energy to find out.
There are so many pictures and videos of the surviving spire that that surely argues against them all being frauds. However, this was a big operation, with lots of disinfo, so perhaps. I wouldn't discount the possibility completely without knowing more.
This is just the sort of investigation that a properly functioning news media would perform. This and a hundred other things. E.g., AFAIK, nobody has verified Hopsicker's info. What if he's not legit? Not saying that's the case, but it's possible. Another thing that bothers me is no verification of Rodriguez's story of a person that he knew that had all the skin ripped from his arms and hanging from just his fingertips, due to an explosion in the basement.
Where is the medical reports of this person, or, more likely, the death certificate?
Where is the investigative reporting to talk to cell phone engineers and CEO's to see what their opinion is of the viability of the alleged phone calls from the planes occupants? In this vein, where is the demonstration of "voice faking" technology? An informative article on this subject?
Why has nobody knocked on doors in China and India to see if perhaps a few 'souveneirs' were kept? Or if the metal made it there, at all? (It could have been dumped in the sea, e.g.)
Why has nobody knocked on doors of engineering firms in Iran and Indonesia to see what THEY think of the collapses of WTC 1,2, and 7? Why has nobody knocked on doors of construction engineers in the US to see what they think of Bazant-Zou's paper?
Where are the interviews with NYC firemen and policemen who have studied the 911 atrocities, of what they think of 911 now? If they're gagged, anonymous interviews. If they're not, then public interviews. You can't tell me they don't have opinions, one way or another. (To be clear: not recollections of, e.g., things that sounded like bombs. Rather, based on all they know, what is their opinion of 911 now?)
Of course, I don't mean a couple cherry-picked interviews that may have appeared in main stream media to buttress the FEMA Fairy Tale. I'd like to read the interviews of hundreds of NYC police and firemen, to get a statistical sense of their beliefs. If it turns out that a firemen is 80% likelier to believe in LIHOP, I'd say that's significant. Likewise, if they are far less likely to believe in LIHOP.
Since we have such a lousy and corrupt media, I recently proposed a way to (eventually) do away with our current corrupt media. We should be able to "vote" funds to do investigative reporting that we feel has been neglected. See
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
if you're interested.
The CORE WAS ESSENTIALLY HOLLOW. The 47 columns certainly didn't occupy that much of the core's square footage. The core, in fact, was FILLED with elevator shafts and service shafts. There is no way they COULDN'T have ended up being a conduit for fire and explosive gas mixes.
Is this the hollow core floor plan? I am assuming the X is the elevator shafts the rest is concrete floor. Explain how it is hollow?
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2a/fig-2-1.jpe
Yes, I have to agree with you there (regarding 'clear as mud').
Attempting to analyse FACTS from this particular photo... (Spire Fake 1)
... is pretty much a waste of time.
I'm not a photo expert (by any means), but attempting to draw 'conclusions' from the above photo...
... is like attempting to draw conclusions from photos like...
OR...
OR...
OR...
An interesting point to note...
Does anyone recognize WHERE the above 'alleged fake spire photo came from?
Here's a clue...
Does this picture of the 'spire' look familiar?...(Spire Fake 2)
Now... I mean REALLY..., c'mon... 'Homeland Security'... Who's going to buy that picture? You are claiming that THAT is the same 'spire' as this...???
Oh sorry, I forgot... BOTH towers had a spire 'left over'
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!
Now, perhaps 'some' who are posting the above fake Spire pictures have been 'duped' by 'Algoxy'... but then again, Let's just check back and see who has been posting these fake photos as 'PROOF' to support their case. I've already checked... If you're interested, you can check for yourself... I won't mention any names.
The FAKE Spire photos have been coming from this website...
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Quote: ---"The Central Core of the WTC was 'actually' made of CONCRETE... 'believe it or NOT!'
Yeah... Right... and 19 evil muslim elves suspended the laws of physics on 9/11.
Hoffman's pretty careful... but, methinks even HE got 'caught' on posting this picture. Gonna have to speak to him about this.
IS the REAL picture of the 'spire' part of the core OR the perimeter columns? In view of the above... I will have to retract my previous speculation... and admit that I can't actually tell whether they are of the core or perimeter columns. I guess that speculation is still up in the air...
...unlike the spire.
Maybe the three stooges can clear this up for us?
An interesting point to note...
Does anyone recognize WHERE the above 'alleged fake spire photo came from?
Here's a clue...
Does this picture of the 'spire' look familiar?...(Spire Fake 2)
Now... I mean REALLY..., c'mon... 'Homeland Security'... Who's going to buy that picture? You are claiming that THAT is the same 'spire' as this...???
Oh sorry, I forgot... BOTH towers had a spire 'left over'
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!
Now, perhaps 'some' who are posting the above fake Spire pictures have been 'duped' by 'Algoxy'... but then again, Let's just check back and see who has been posting these fake photos as 'PROOF' to support their case. I've already checked... If you're interested, you can check for yourself... I won't mention any names.
The FAKE Spire photos have been coming from this website...
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Quote: ---"The Central Core of the WTC was 'actually' made of CONCRETE... 'believe it or NOT!'
Yeah... Right... and 19 evil muslim elves suspended the laws of physics on 9/11.
Hoffman's pretty careful... but, methinks even HE got 'caught' on posting this picture. Gonna have to speak to him about this.
IS the REAL picture of the 'spire' part of the core OR the perimeter columns? In view of the above... I will have to retract my previous speculation... and admit that I can't actually tell whether they are of the core or perimeter columns.
Ya gotta love Foxxy.
Though he should change his ID to WEASEL.
You know the difference between the site with the, according to Foxx, "fake" pictures and Foxx's site (and position).
ALMOST NOTHING.
ALGOXY IS FOXX'S COMPETITOR
He's been at it since 2002
Foxx tries to make him look stupid with the 'concrete core' quote, but we ALL know how Foxx likes to take quotes out of context.
The guy has what appears to be some of the more detailed info on the central core construction than I've seen.
What he DOESN'T claim (as A. Johnson did in his video) is that the Steel COLUMNS are encased in Reinforced Concrete.
He talks mainly about 4 rectangular concrete boxes and the reinforced concrete floor in the core.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif
This is the first I've heard of the 4 rectangular concrete boxes, but they don't seem illogical.
But immaterial to the discussion.
The key is Foxx wants you to buy that the photos are FAKE.
No proof.
Just his word.
Right.
And don't you just LOVE this line:
You know what METHINKS
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Arthur
DOES THIS LOOK HOLLOW TO YOU ?
The Bank Switcheroo:
DOES THIS LOOK HOLLOW TO YOU ?
The Bank Switcheroo:
All the dirty money has to go somewhere. Most schmucks will trust their money to multinational banks like CitiGroup and PNC, but where do the rich and powerful go with their hard-swindled cash? Two places serve the needs of the rich and powerful. The same multinational McBanks often have departments that offer products and services like "Aggressive Tax Defense" reserved for people with extremely large balances. Second, at least until June of this year, a lineage of banks for the Rich, Powerful, and Up to No Good existed. The Riggs Bank Embassy Banking Division served in this function, moving frozen funds for Augustin Pinochet, embezzling money for Exxon and Equatorial Guinea, funneling money from the Saudi Embassy to alleged 9/11 hijackers, and allegedly laundering CIA money; PNC "acquired" Riggs Bank after it became clear late last year the Riggs could not even begin to meet government regulations; rumor has it that Riggs took over BCCI's dirty money duties after regulators put BCCI on death row. We will likely not continue to see money leap from sinking crooked banks to healthy crooked banks; Riggs really was a hold-out from an earlier era when a "local bank" could have an office in DC, New York, Miami, London, and Berlin. Now the McBanks, much larger operations, seem to have carved up this niche into transnational parts, as we might expect.
http://www.loudwire.net/users/channel_null/
Saudi money transfers
A Saudi named Omar al-Bayoumi housed and opened bank accounts for two of the 9/11 hijackers. About two weeks after the assistance began, al-Bayoumi's wife began receiving monthly payments totaling tens of thousands of dollars from Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the wife of Saudi ambassador and Bush confidant Prince Bandar bin Sultan, through a Riggs bank account.[1] Upon discovery of these transactions, the FBI began investigating the bank for possible money-laundering and terrorist financing.
Although the FBI and later the 9/11 Commission ultimately stated that the money was not intentionally being routed to fund terrorists, investigators were surprised to see how lax the safeguards at Riggs Bank were. Several Saudi accounts were discovered to have financial improprieties, including a lack of required background checks and a consistent failure to alert regulators of large transactions, in violation of the law. Many of these transactions involved Prince Bandar personally, often transferring over $1 million at a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggs_Bank
Reason for my ban ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggs_Bank
Reason for my ban ?
Anyway, except some offensive behavior and non-constructive posts, you
disclose someone's personal info, which is strictly prohibited.
rocking from decentral brothers
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.
Could someone please point me to the link to this video if it shows something different from that below?
I have seen articles which equate the 'spire' with the core columns, eg:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb...f_the_Spire.htm
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=294315643
This is usually advanced as evidence that the core columns mysteriously vapourised. The hypothesis is based on a giant mistake however: the 'spire' which you see in the image (see link above) is actually a portion of the exterior cladding.
The illusion that this spire is part of the core is created by a quite mischeivous use of photos from different perspectives:
Can you see that the perspective is different in each of the four images? I can't tell exactly whether it is just the zoom magnitude or whether the angle of view has also changed - which would make sense if the image were taken from a helicopter.
I have always been highly skeptical of the 'strange collapse of the spire' as a conspiracy argument. Seemed like deliberate disinformation to me...
It is curious and really quite interesting if people are now using the same mischeivous argument as proof of the official theory.
Could it be that the 'strange collapse of the spire' concept comes from a standard CIA disinfo toolkit issued to all agents? The instructions might read:
MULTI PURPOSE DISINFORMATION CONCEPT
Use this in 2 ways:
1) To create silly conspiracy theories which will inevitably be debunked.
2) To promote the official theory by reinterpreting the meaning of (1).
I can easily rebut all the versions of "well, it just fell down" to "well, it got knocked down". Just because I don't have much time or inclination to point out the obvious, doesn't mean a rebuttal is not desirable at all. It serves a purpose in underscoring just how desperate popes can be to explain away what anybody with decent eyesight can clearly see.
The one "explanation" I can't so easily rebut is the "well, all the pictures and videos are fakes", since I really don't know where all these pictures and videos come from. Furthermore, I don't have the time, resources, or energy to find out.
There are so many pictures and videos of the surviving spire that that surely argues against them all being frauds. However, this was a big operation, with lots of disinfo, so perhaps. I wouldn't discount the possibility completely without knowing more.
This is just the sort of investigation that a properly functioning news media would perform. This and a hundred other things. E.g., AFAIK, nobody has verified Hopsicker's info. What if he's not legit? Not saying that's the case, but it's possible. Another thing that bothers me is no verification of Rodriguez's story of a person that he knew that had all the skin ripped from his arms and hanging from just his fingertips, due to an explosion in the basement.
Where is the medical reports of this person, or, more likely, the death certificate?
Where is the investigative reporting to talk to cell phone engineers and CEO's to see what their opinion is of the viability of the alleged phone calls from the planes occupants? In this vein, where is the demonstration of "voice faking" technology? An informative article on this subject?
Why has nobody knocked on doors in China and India to see if perhaps a few 'souveneirs' were kept? Or if the metal made it there, at all? (It could have been dumped in the sea, e.g.)
Why has nobody knocked on doors of engineering firms in Iran and Indonesia to see what THEY think of the collapses of WTC 1,2, and 7? Why has nobody knocked on doors of construction engineers in the US to see what they think of Bazant-Zou's paper?
Where are the interviews with NYC firemen and policemen who have studied the 911 atrocities, of what they think of 911 now? If they're gagged, anonymous interviews. If they're not, then public interviews. You can't tell me they don't have opinions, one way or another. (To be clear: not recollections of, e.g., things that sounded like bombs. Rather, based on all they know, what is their opinion of 911 now?)
Of course, I don't mean a couple cherry-picked interviews that may have appeared in main stream media to buttress the FEMA Fairy Tale. I'd like to read the interviews of hundreds of NYC police and firemen, to get a statistical sense of their beliefs. If it turns out that a firemen is 80% likelier to believe in LIHOP, I'd say that's significant. Likewise, if they are far less likely to believe in LIHOP.
Since we have such a lousy and corrupt media, I recently proposed a way to (eventually) do away with our current corrupt media. We should be able to "vote" funds to do investigative reporting that we feel has been neglected. See
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
if you're interested.
Victoria,
In your article you say that Greg Szymanski was unable to get an interview with Stephen Jones. But that's not exactly true. He interviewed him on his radio show on Mon, November 14, 2005.
Here is the link:
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg05.html
I listened to that interview and thought it was quite respectful.
I do have serious concenrns about Szymanski, however. For instance, on his show in the same week he interviewed some crazy guy who claimed that secret agents had blasted him with microwaves while he was washing dishes in his kitchen. This was supposedly retribution for telling people about his analysis of the Naudet documentary in which he claims to have spotted 'men in Arab garb' shooting people while Flight 11 slammed into the North Tower. Supposedly he observed this by applying a magnifying glass to his TV set! LOL!
What bothers me is that Sysmanski, who presents an image of being a respectable investigative reporter would air something ridiculous like this in the same week that he interviewed Stephen Jones and Mordechai Venunu.
So, while I agree with your suspicions about Sysmanski, and I'm sure that the other quotes you made are accurate, I feel that Sysmanski creates credibility problems more by association with his nuttier pieces..
(: cheers
In your article you say that Greg Szymanski was unable to get an interview with Stephen Jones. But that's not exactly true. He interviewed him on his radio show on Mon, November 14, 2005.
Here is the link:
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg05.html
I listened to that interview and thought it was quite respectful.
I do have serious concenrns about Szymanski, however. For instance, on his show in the same week he interviewed some crazy guy who claimed that secret agents had blasted him with microwaves while he was washing dishes in his kitchen. This was supposedly retribution for telling people about his analysis of the Naudet documentary in which he claims to have spotted 'men in Arab garb' shooting people while Flight 11 slammed into the North Tower. Supposedly he observed this by applying a magnifying glass to his TV set! LOL!
What bothers me is that Sysmanski, who presents an image of being a respectable investigative reporter would air something ridiculous like this in the same week that he interviewed Stephen Jones and Mordechai Venunu.
So, while I agree with your suspicions about Sysmanski, and I'm sure that the other quotes you made are accurate, I feel that Sysmanski creates credibility problems more by association with his nuttier pieces..
(: cheers
Sorry metamars... I'll get back to what we were discussing in a while when I quit laughing...
This is just TOO Funny!
You've heard about the Amazing Basement Bellows Theory...
Well, folks... if you have somehow missed it... you've got to check out a new theory which ranks right up there in entertainment value...
The Amazing Supersonic Sentient Fuel-Air Thermobaric Bomb in the Basement Theory...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=55499
I just could not resist, and replied on page 2 of that thread.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=55654
My apologies for wasting time on frivolities... but, it was a hard day, and I needed a little comedy... Back to real research now...
Later
This is just TOO Funny!
You've heard about the Amazing Basement Bellows Theory...
Well, folks... if you have somehow missed it... you've got to check out a new theory which ranks right up there in entertainment value...
The Amazing Supersonic Sentient Fuel-Air Thermobaric Bomb in the Basement Theory...
QUOTE
He {Rodriguez}CONCLUDES from the fact that he heard and felt the shock AFTER the explosion that the explosion preceded the impact; however, this CONCLUSION is incorrect. In fact, the shock of impact took over a second to make it from the impact site on the upper floors through the material of the building to the basement; the fuel explosion, however, made it in less than a second. Thus, the fuel explosion shockwave arrived and blew the doors off the elevator shaft before the impact shockwave did.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=55499
I just could not resist, and replied on page 2 of that thread.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=55654
My apologies for wasting time on frivolities... but, it was a hard day, and I needed a little comedy... Back to real research now...
Later
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 18 2006, 03:17 AM)
Sorry metamars... I'll get back to what we were discussing in a while when I quit laughing...
This is just TOO Funny!
You've heard about the Amazing Basement Bellows Theory...
Well, folks... if you have somehow missed it... you've got to check out a new theory which ranks right up there in entertainment value...
The Amazing Supersonic Sentient Fuel-Air Thermobaric Bomb in the Basement Theory...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=55499
I just could not resist, and replied on page 2 of that thread.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=55654
My apologies for wasting time on frivolities... but, it was a hard day, and I needed a little comedy... Back to real research now...
Later
I just want to know why a super sonic shock wave can go where a micro-nuke can't.
Actually, I don't.
I may be getting work far from home, will have precious little time to post here, so, no need to apologize to me. Fortunately, we are (IMO) fast approaching the end of original arguments. (I mean, original and serious. There are an infinite number of original and non-serious arguments that one can make. Not that anybody would do that, right? )
This is just TOO Funny!
You've heard about the Amazing Basement Bellows Theory...
Well, folks... if you have somehow missed it... you've got to check out a new theory which ranks right up there in entertainment value...
The Amazing Supersonic Sentient Fuel-Air Thermobaric Bomb in the Basement Theory...
QUOTE
He {Rodriguez}CONCLUDES from the fact that he heard and felt the shock AFTER the explosion that the explosion preceded the impact; however, this CONCLUSION is incorrect. In fact, the shock of impact took over a second to make it from the impact site on the upper floors through the material of the building to the basement; the fuel explosion, however, made it in less than a second. Thus, the fuel explosion shockwave arrived and blew the doors off the elevator shaft before the impact shockwave did.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=55499
I just could not resist, and replied on page 2 of that thread.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=55654
My apologies for wasting time on frivolities... but, it was a hard day, and I needed a little comedy... Back to real research now...
Later
I just want to know why a super sonic shock wave can go where a micro-nuke can't.
Actually, I don't.
I may be getting work far from home, will have precious little time to post here, so, no need to apologize to me. Fortunately, we are (IMO) fast approaching the end of original arguments. (I mean, original and serious. There are an infinite number of original and non-serious arguments that one can make. Not that anybody would do that, right?
)
I'm glad you two clowns think its funny.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/04/rec.dhingra.cnna/
The Elevator shafts were filled with fire and or explosive blasts.
They were lethal.
This guy was 13 floors below the airplanes impact, had gotten out of the elevator and was walking down the hall when flames from the impact toasted him.
The CORE WAS ESSENTIALLY HOLLOW. The 47 columns certainly didn't occupy that much of the core's square footage. The core, in fact, was FILLED with elevator shafts and service shafts. There is no way they COULDN'T have ended up being a conduit for fire and explosive gas mixes.
You have heard credible reports of fireballs in the lobby AT THE TIME THE PLANE HIT.
You have heard of people burned in the lobby from the fireball, at the time the plane hit along with reports of the smell of kerosene, sprinklers going off, fire and black soot.
We can never reconcile everyone's testimony without a cross-examination, but the gist of the multitude of stories and evidence is plain. A fireball from the planes impact swept through the towers, erupting at many elevator stops as well as the basement levels and the main lobby.
Arthur
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/04/rec.dhingra.cnna/
The Elevator shafts were filled with fire and or explosive blasts.
They were lethal.
This guy was 13 floors below the airplanes impact, had gotten out of the elevator and was walking down the hall when flames from the impact toasted him.
The CORE WAS ESSENTIALLY HOLLOW. The 47 columns certainly didn't occupy that much of the core's square footage. The core, in fact, was FILLED with elevator shafts and service shafts. There is no way they COULDN'T have ended up being a conduit for fire and explosive gas mixes.
You have heard credible reports of fireballs in the lobby AT THE TIME THE PLANE HIT.
You have heard of people burned in the lobby from the fireball, at the time the plane hit along with reports of the smell of kerosene, sprinklers going off, fire and black soot.
We can never reconcile everyone's testimony without a cross-examination, but the gist of the multitude of stories and evidence is plain. A fireball from the planes impact swept through the towers, erupting at many elevator stops as well as the basement levels and the main lobby.
Arthur
the mechanical floors and sky lobbies interupted the elevator shafts from being continuous all the way down. i'm pretty sure you need seperate motors and pulleys for stacked elevator banks. where would they be? off to the side? hovering, perhaps?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 17 2006, 10:01 PM)
The CORE WAS ESSENTIALLY HOLLOW. The 47 columns certainly didn't occupy that much of the core's square footage. The core, in fact, was FILLED with elevator shafts and service shafts. There is no way they COULDN'T have ended up being a conduit for fire and explosive gas mixes.
Is this the hollow core floor plan? I am assuming the X is the elevator shafts the rest is concrete floor. Explain how it is hollow?
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2a/fig-2-1.jpe
QUOTE
Originally posted by metamars
I still don't believe that the "clear as mud" picture shows a core, no how, no way. For one thing, when you enlarge something clear as mud, you get - well - enlarged clear as mud.
I still don't believe that the "clear as mud" picture shows a core, no how, no way. For one thing, when you enlarge something clear as mud, you get - well - enlarged clear as mud.
Yes, I have to agree with you there (regarding 'clear as mud').
Attempting to analyse FACTS from this particular photo... (Spire Fake 1)
... is pretty much a waste of time.
I'm not a photo expert (by any means), but attempting to draw 'conclusions' from the above photo...
... is like attempting to draw conclusions from photos like...
OR...
OR...
OR...
An interesting point to note...
Does anyone recognize WHERE the above 'alleged fake spire photo came from?
Here's a clue...
Does this picture of the 'spire' look familiar?...(Spire Fake 2)
Now... I mean REALLY..., c'mon... 'Homeland Security'... Who's going to buy that picture? You are claiming that THAT is the same 'spire' as this...???
Oh sorry, I forgot... BOTH towers had a spire 'left over'
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!
Now, perhaps 'some' who are posting the above fake Spire pictures have been 'duped' by 'Algoxy'... but then again, Let's just check back and see who has been posting these fake photos as 'PROOF' to support their case. I've already checked... If you're interested, you can check for yourself... I won't mention any names.
The FAKE Spire photos have been coming from this website...
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Quote: ---"The Central Core of the WTC was 'actually' made of CONCRETE... 'believe it or NOT!'
Yeah... Right... and 19 evil muslim elves suspended the laws of physics on 9/11.
Hoffman's pretty careful... but, methinks even HE got 'caught' on posting this picture. Gonna have to speak to him about this.
IS the REAL picture of the 'spire' part of the core OR the perimeter columns? In view of the above... I will have to retract my previous speculation... and admit that I can't actually tell whether they are of the core or perimeter columns. I guess that speculation is still up in the air...
...unlike the spire.
Maybe the three stooges can clear this up for us?
What's the deal with this "adoucette" guy? He straight up lies in every single post he makes.
Is it true he works for Diebold, the company that makes rigged voting machines?
I guess that would make perfect sense.
Either way, his complete lack of integrity is disgusting.
Is it true he works for Diebold, the company that makes rigged voting machines?
I guess that would make perfect sense.
Either way, his complete lack of integrity is disgusting.
Here's some more reading material:
http://www.tyrannyalert.com/9-11%20fairy%20tale.pdf
Same stuff. But, just in case you missed some infomation.
http://www.tyrannyalert.com/9-11%20fairy%20tale.pdf
Same stuff. But, just in case you missed some infomation.
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 18 2006, 04:29 AM)
What's the deal with this "adoucette" guy? He straight up lies in every single post he makes.
Is it true he works for Diebold, the company that makes rigged voting machines?
I guess that would make perfect sense.
Either way, his complete lack of integrity is disgusting.
Hey, just trying to make a buck.
And this voting thing, well its a REAL money maker;
Just go to WWW.VoteForHiliary.Com
or
WWW.AnybodyButHiliary.com
and you can buy as many votes for or against her in the next election.
Satisfaction guaranteed.
Arthur
Is it true he works for Diebold, the company that makes rigged voting machines?
I guess that would make perfect sense.
Either way, his complete lack of integrity is disgusting.
Hey, just trying to make a buck.
And this voting thing, well its a REAL money maker;
Just go to WWW.VoteForHiliary.Com
or
WWW.AnybodyButHiliary.com
and you can buy as many votes for or against her in the next election.
Satisfaction guaranteed.
Arthur
Go to Foxx's web site - www.idontwanttobelievemyeyesbecauseifididthenimajerk.com
also
www.foxxcreatesthelamestliestosupporthisfantasy.com
www.anyonecanseefoxxisapropagandistfortherovemachine.com
www.foxxdebateslikeatwoyearold.com
www.anyonecanseethroughfoxxlies.com
also
www.foxxcreatesthelamestliestosupporthisfantasy.com
www.anyonecanseefoxxisapropagandistfortherovemachine.com
www.foxxdebateslikeatwoyearold.com
www.anyonecanseethroughfoxxlies.com
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 18 2006, 02:59 AM)
An interesting point to note...
Does anyone recognize WHERE the above 'alleged fake spire photo came from?
Here's a clue...
Does this picture of the 'spire' look familiar?...(Spire Fake 2)
Now... I mean REALLY..., c'mon... 'Homeland Security'... Who's going to buy that picture? You are claiming that THAT is the same 'spire' as this...???
Oh sorry, I forgot... BOTH towers had a spire 'left over'
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!
Now, perhaps 'some' who are posting the above fake Spire pictures have been 'duped' by 'Algoxy'... but then again, Let's just check back and see who has been posting these fake photos as 'PROOF' to support their case. I've already checked... If you're interested, you can check for yourself... I won't mention any names.
The FAKE Spire photos have been coming from this website...
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Quote: ---"The Central Core of the WTC was 'actually' made of CONCRETE... 'believe it or NOT!'
Yeah... Right... and 19 evil muslim elves suspended the laws of physics on 9/11.
Hoffman's pretty careful... but, methinks even HE got 'caught' on posting this picture. Gonna have to speak to him about this.
IS the REAL picture of the 'spire' part of the core OR the perimeter columns? In view of the above... I will have to retract my previous speculation... and admit that I can't actually tell whether they are of the core or perimeter columns.
Ya gotta love Foxxy.
Though he should change his ID to WEASEL.
You know the difference between the site with the, according to Foxx, "fake" pictures and Foxx's site (and position).
ALMOST NOTHING.
ALGOXY IS FOXX'S COMPETITOR
He's been at it since 2002
Foxx tries to make him look stupid with the 'concrete core' quote, but we ALL know how Foxx likes to take quotes out of context.
The guy has what appears to be some of the more detailed info on the central core construction than I've seen.
What he DOESN'T claim (as A. Johnson did in his video) is that the Steel COLUMNS are encased in Reinforced Concrete.
He talks mainly about 4 rectangular concrete boxes and the reinforced concrete floor in the core.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif
This is the first I've heard of the 4 rectangular concrete boxes, but they don't seem illogical.
But immaterial to the discussion.
The key is Foxx wants you to buy that the photos are FAKE.
No proof.
Just his word.
Right.
And don't you just LOVE this line:
QUOTE
Hoffman's pretty careful... but, methinks even HE got 'caught' on posting this picture. Gonna have to speak to him about this.
You know what METHINKS
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 18 2006, 08:29 AM)
What's the deal with this "adoucette" guy? He straight up lies in every single post he makes.
Is it true he works for Diebold, the company that makes rigged voting machines?
I guess that would make perfect sense.
Either way, his complete lack of integrity is disgusting.
This ironicly comes from a sock puppet...
Is it true he works for Diebold, the company that makes rigged voting machines?
I guess that would make perfect sense.
Either way, his complete lack of integrity is disgusting.
This ironicly comes from a sock puppet...
It is one thing to get a construction detail wrong and another to post a fake photo..
The web site's credibility does drop in that the construction detail is incorrect. The only concrete in the core AFAIK was at the base of the core columns where the columns meet the foundation. The core column ends atop a pyramid of heavy steel beams, all of which is covered by dense concrete.
As for the photos the only evidence presented that they are faked is that the author gets the core construction wrong and that Foxx wants them to be faked.
Don't like a photo, declare it a fake, seems to be the credo of some.
If there is other evidence that these are fake then let's have it.
The web site's credibility does drop in that the construction detail is incorrect. The only concrete in the core AFAIK was at the base of the core columns where the columns meet the foundation. The core column ends atop a pyramid of heavy steel beams, all of which is covered by dense concrete.
As for the photos the only evidence presented that they are faked is that the author gets the core construction wrong and that Foxx wants them to be faked.
Don't like a photo, declare it a fake, seems to be the credo of some.
If there is other evidence that these are fake then let's have it.
Just posting this pic I found. One of the clearer pictures of the truss/seat/perimeter column pics I've seen.
I think what is clear from this picture is the design of the building WAS minimalist.
There is zip redundancy in these connections.
Arthur
I think what is clear from this picture is the design of the building WAS minimalist.
There is zip redundancy in these connections.
Arthur
How developed is the field of scalability, in reference to behavioral congruities of reduced dimensional, structural models? Would there be any value in reconstructing, say, a 1/20th scale, rough, facsimile of a tower and studying its' reactions and propensities to inflicted stress. The upper section could have massive, distributed, water reservoirs providing the ability to ever increase upper mass (H2O= 8lbs./gal.) to well past projected failure mode . Don't we have a master boilermaker on this thread (brian?). If the project, were expanded into a "Nova" style documentary, the possibility of a back end funding, exists. ---How about some blue prints for an 8', backyard version, based on rebar, cement and structural components from local hardware sources. Anchor it into a wide 3' deep. re-enforce slab foundation. Hire a small crane for an hour, and drop something really big on it. At least your neighbors wouldn't say you were boring but they will call the authorities. No seriously, I am interested in issues of scale, scaling and how it could be utilized as an applicable, research tool. Before the WTCs were built, proportional infrastructure models would have been necessary to study real world behaviors. Do these physical models, still exist? Only, if you're not looking for them.--- Metamars, it seems to me that approaching experts in this area, would also be potentially productive.
so the core must have been REALLY hollow, then? no concrete in the core, eh?
seems to me the floors were concrete, and the walls thick gypsum board.
i watched a video on pbs(you can download it from their website) on the construction of the towers. there was at least SOME reinforced concrete in the building, because i saw it being poured.
i don't know about the first tower (to collapse), but if you watch the video of the second tower (to collapse) there is definitely a spire which stand breifly, and then begins to tip, and then PLUMMETS. that's the 911eyewitness video, btw. i don't know about doctored photos, but i'm pretty sure it's not cgi in the video.
i don't know why either side would 'want' this to be true. it is just more data.
seems to me the floors were concrete, and the walls thick gypsum board.
i watched a video on pbs(you can download it from their website) on the construction of the towers. there was at least SOME reinforced concrete in the building, because i saw it being poured.
i don't know about the first tower (to collapse), but if you watch the video of the second tower (to collapse) there is definitely a spire which stand breifly, and then begins to tip, and then PLUMMETS. that's the 911eyewitness video, btw. i don't know about doctored photos, but i'm pretty sure it's not cgi in the video.
i don't know why either side would 'want' this to be true. it is just more data.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 18 2006, 10:47 AM)
Just posting this pic I found. One of the clearer pictures of the truss/seat/perimeter column pics I've seen.
I think what is clear from this picture is the design of the building WAS minimalist.
There is zip redundancy in these connections.
Arthur
Look at the center of the truss. The cross truss at a 90 degree angle is redundant.
I think what is clear from this picture is the design of the building WAS minimalist.
There is zip redundancy in these connections.
Arthur
Look at the center of the truss. The cross truss at a 90 degree angle is redundant.
QUOTE (newton+Jan 18 2006, 02:59 PM)
so the core must have been REALLY hollow, then? no concrete in the core, eh?
seems to me the floors were concrete, and the walls thick gypsum board.
i watched a video on pbs(you can download it from their website) on the construction of the towers. there was at least SOME reinforced concrete in the building, because i saw it being poured.
i don't know about the first tower (to collapse), but if you watch the video of the second tower (to collapse) there is definitely a spire which stand breifly, and then begins to tip, and then PLUMMETS. that's the 911eyewitness video, btw. i don't know about doctored photos, but i'm pretty sure it's not cgi in the video.
i don't know why either side would 'want' this to be true. it is just more data.
Of course there were FLOORS, people didn't swing on vines when they got off of the elevators. I'm not saying the core was analagous to a straw.
But there were a LOT of elevator shafts in the towers, even at the upper floors.
Yes, they saved a LOT of room by the sky lobby system, but that still meant that shafts had to run top to bottom. You can see how they were staggered. They didn't make you get off of an elevator at a sky lobby and walk 100 ft to get to the next bank. They were CONVENIENTLY arranged, talk to ANYONE who ever used the towers elevator system.
Now in the BANKS of elevators there is no reason to have WALLS between the adjacent elevator shafts. The elevators were typically in banks of 3, with 1 bank on each side of a landing. That whole area was a HOLLOW TUBE.
If you ADD UP all the Elevator shafts on the 90th or so floor plan it appears to be about 1/4 of the total area of the Core. There was a greater number below each sky lobby. by the time you get below the first sky lobby, there is essentially nothing BUT elevator shafts. So yes, describing the core as HOLLOW is an apt description.
By using the term Hollow, I do not mean to imply WEAK. Just that there was no issue about jet fuel making it from the impact point to the basement.
Arthur
seems to me the floors were concrete, and the walls thick gypsum board.
i watched a video on pbs(you can download it from their website) on the construction of the towers. there was at least SOME reinforced concrete in the building, because i saw it being poured.
i don't know about the first tower (to collapse), but if you watch the video of the second tower (to collapse) there is definitely a spire which stand breifly, and then begins to tip, and then PLUMMETS. that's the 911eyewitness video, btw. i don't know about doctored photos, but i'm pretty sure it's not cgi in the video.
i don't know why either side would 'want' this to be true. it is just more data.
Of course there were FLOORS, people didn't swing on vines when they got off of the elevators. I'm not saying the core was analagous to a straw.
But there were a LOT of elevator shafts in the towers, even at the upper floors.
Yes, they saved a LOT of room by the sky lobby system, but that still meant that shafts had to run top to bottom. You can see how they were staggered. They didn't make you get off of an elevator at a sky lobby and walk 100 ft to get to the next bank. They were CONVENIENTLY arranged, talk to ANYONE who ever used the towers elevator system.
Now in the BANKS of elevators there is no reason to have WALLS between the adjacent elevator shafts. The elevators were typically in banks of 3, with 1 bank on each side of a landing. That whole area was a HOLLOW TUBE.
If you ADD UP all the Elevator shafts on the 90th or so floor plan it appears to be about 1/4 of the total area of the Core. There was a greater number below each sky lobby. by the time you get below the first sky lobby, there is essentially nothing BUT elevator shafts. So yes, describing the core as HOLLOW is an apt description.
By using the term Hollow, I do not mean to imply WEAK. Just that there was no issue about jet fuel making it from the impact point to the basement.
Arthur
QUOTE
Reality Check, if you were prepared to check reality, or read some of the previous posts, you would soon realise that the reality is that your post on the construction of the towers was as far from the reality as is possible. You post this -
"(1) A steel frame skyscraper which, UNLIKE ALL PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, used ONLY an outer ‘SHELL’ of steel and glass to essentially produce a ‘square tube’ from whose ‘walls’ were suspended floor slabs fixed at their edges by welds/rivets etc. to that ‘exo-skeleton’ framework;
(2) Those floor slabs, UNLIKE PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, had LITTLE or NO CONTIGUOUS CENTRAL SUPPORT FRAMEWORK/CONCRETE-COLUMNS running from foundations to roof;"
Which is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THE REALITY
"(1) A steel frame skyscraper which, UNLIKE ALL PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, used ONLY an outer ‘SHELL’ of steel and glass to essentially produce a ‘square tube’ from whose ‘walls’ were suspended floor slabs fixed at their edges by welds/rivets etc. to that ‘exo-skeleton’ framework;
(2) Those floor slabs, UNLIKE PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, had LITTLE or NO CONTIGUOUS CENTRAL SUPPORT FRAMEWORK/CONCRETE-COLUMNS running from foundations to roof;"
Which is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THE REALITY
DOES THIS LOOK HOLLOW TO YOU ?
The Bank Switcheroo:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Reality Check, if you were prepared to check reality, or read some of the previous posts, you would soon realise that the reality is that your post on the construction of the towers was as far from the reality as is possible. You post this - "(1) A steel frame skyscraper which, UNLIKE ALL PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, used ONLY an outer ‘SHELL’ of steel and glass to essentially produce a ‘square tube’ from whose ‘walls’ were suspended floor slabs fixed at their edges by welds/rivets etc. to that ‘exo-skeleton’ framework; (2) Those floor slabs, UNLIKE PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, had LITTLE or NO CONTIGUOUS CENTRAL SUPPORT FRAMEWORK/CONCRETE-COLUMNS running from foundations to roof;" Which is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THE REALITY |
DOES THIS LOOK HOLLOW TO YOU ?
The Bank Switcheroo:
All the dirty money has to go somewhere. Most schmucks will trust their money to multinational banks like CitiGroup and PNC, but where do the rich and powerful go with their hard-swindled cash? Two places serve the needs of the rich and powerful. The same multinational McBanks often have departments that offer products and services like "Aggressive Tax Defense" reserved for people with extremely large balances. Second, at least until June of this year, a lineage of banks for the Rich, Powerful, and Up to No Good existed. The Riggs Bank Embassy Banking Division served in this function, moving frozen funds for Augustin Pinochet, embezzling money for Exxon and Equatorial Guinea, funneling money from the Saudi Embassy to alleged 9/11 hijackers, and allegedly laundering CIA money; PNC "acquired" Riggs Bank after it became clear late last year the Riggs could not even begin to meet government regulations; rumor has it that Riggs took over BCCI's dirty money duties after regulators put BCCI on death row. We will likely not continue to see money leap from sinking crooked banks to healthy crooked banks; Riggs really was a hold-out from an earlier era when a "local bank" could have an office in DC, New York, Miami, London, and Berlin. Now the McBanks, much larger operations, seem to have carved up this niche into transnational parts, as we might expect.
http://www.loudwire.net/users/channel_null/
Saudi money transfers
QUOTE
A Saudi named Omar al-Bayoumi housed and opened bank accounts for two of the 9/11 hijackers. About two weeks after the assistance began, al-Bayoumi's wife began receiving monthly payments totaling tens of thousands of dollars from Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the wife of Saudi ambassador and Bush confidant Prince Bandar bin Sultan, through a Riggs bank account.[1] Upon discovery of these transactions, the FBI began investigating the bank for possible money-laundering and terrorist financing.
Although the FBI and later the 9/11 Commission ultimately stated that the money was not intentionally being routed to fund terrorists, investigators were surprised to see how lax the safeguards at Riggs Bank were. Several Saudi accounts were discovered to have financial improprieties, including a lack of required background checks and a consistent failure to alert regulators of large transactions, in violation of the law. Many of these transactions involved Prince Bandar personally, often transferring over $1 million at a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggs_Bank
Reason for my ban ?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
A Saudi named Omar al-Bayoumi housed and opened bank accounts for two of the 9/11 hijackers. About two weeks after the assistance began, al-Bayoumi's wife began receiving monthly payments totaling tens of thousands of dollars from Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the wife of Saudi ambassador and Bush confidant Prince Bandar bin Sultan, through a Riggs bank account.[1] Upon discovery of these transactions, the FBI began investigating the bank for possible money-laundering and terrorist financing. Although the FBI and later the 9/11 Commission ultimately stated that the money was not intentionally being routed to fund terrorists, investigators were surprised to see how lax the safeguards at Riggs Bank were. Several Saudi accounts were discovered to have financial improprieties, including a lack of required background checks and a consistent failure to alert regulators of large transactions, in violation of the law. Many of these transactions involved Prince Bandar personally, often transferring over $1 million at a time. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggs_Bank
Reason for my ban ?
Anyway, except some offensive behavior and non-constructive posts, you
disclose someone's personal info, which is strictly prohibited.
rocking from decentral brothers
F-P, is an Elevator Shaft HOLLOW?
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2a/fig-2-1.jpe
Each of the Xs are elevator shafts.
That's a LOT of hollow.
Arthur
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2a/fig-2-1.jpe
Each of the Xs are elevator shafts.
That's a LOT of hollow.
Arthur
okay. so what lifted these elevtators? a frictionless magnetic system, perhaps, or a winch and cables? just curious. are you saying the 'stacked' elevators shared one winch and cable per 'continuous' shaft, or have you merely missed that elevators DO need to 'swing on vines'?
QUOTE (newton+Jan 18 2006, 08:14 PM)
okay. so what lifted these elevtators? a frictionless magnetic system, perhaps, or a winch and cables? just curious. are you saying the 'stacked' elevators shared one winch and cable per 'continuous' shaft, or have you merely missed that elevators DO need to 'swing on vines'?
Why don't you do a minimum of research before asking a really simple question...
Why don't you do a minimum of research before asking a really simple question...
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 18 2006, 08:30 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Jan 18 2006, 08:14 PM)
okay. so what lifted these elevtators? a frictionless magnetic system, perhaps, or a winch and cables? just curious. are you saying the 'stacked' elevators shared one winch and cable per 'continuous' shaft, or have you merely missed that elevators DO need to 'swing on vines'?
Why don't you do a minimum of research before asking a really simple question...
well, guest, it seems i've already done some.
do you agree or disagree that an elevator needs a cable and a winch to go up and down? perhaps my rhetorical question was taken literally by your anonymous self.
there were three banks of elevators stacked ontop one another. these elevators would need seperate winchs and cabling systems that would need to be HOUSED on the MECHANICAL FLOORS just under the SKYLOBBIES. can you picture it?
Why don't you do a minimum of research before asking a really simple question...
well, guest, it seems i've already done some.
do you agree or disagree that an elevator needs a cable and a winch to go up and down? perhaps my rhetorical question was taken literally by your anonymous self.
there were three banks of elevators stacked ontop one another. these elevators would need seperate winchs and cabling systems that would need to be HOUSED on the MECHANICAL FLOORS just under the SKYLOBBIES. can you picture it?
Try just ABOVE the skylobbies.
Can you picture it?
Arthur
Can you picture it?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 18 2006, 08:48 PM)
Try just ABOVE the skylobbies.
Can you picture it?
Arthur
still disrupts what you are claiming is a continuous shaft, dude. yes, you're right, they would be above the skylobbies.
Can you picture it?
Arthur
still disrupts what you are claiming is a continuous shaft, dude. yes, you're right, they would be above the skylobbies.
QUOTE (newton+Jan 18 2006, 06:59 PM)
so the core must have been REALLY hollow, then? no concrete in the core, eh?
seems to me the floors were concrete, and the walls thick gypsum board.
i watched a video on pbs(you can download it from their website) on the construction of the towers. there was at least SOME reinforced concrete in the building, because i saw it being poured.
i don't know about the first tower (to collapse), but if you watch the video of the second tower (to collapse) there is definitely a spire which stand breifly, and then begins to tip, and then PLUMMETS. that's the 911eyewitness video, btw. i don't know about doctored photos, but i'm pretty sure it's not cgi in the video.
i don't know why either side would 'want' this to be true. it is just more data.
Just more data????
There is no "conventional"* explanation (that has any real plausibility) for this very unconventional phenomenon. That includes a FEMA-friendly gravity driven collapse. Since, from other considerations, we know that there must have been some extraordinary sources of energy introduced to bring about the collapse, we can conclude that it was an inside job that brought the towers down, even if some Arab patsies were used to crash planes.
In light of the lousy air defenses of that day (and a bunch of other reports) we can impute a US military aspect to the operation.
Now, if some exotic technology was required to reduce the spire to powder, who is most likely to have such technology? (We are excluding aliens, who probably wouldn't want this planet if it was offered on a silver platter. )
Just recently, is has made the news that the US has been working on space based weapons for twenty years, and that they are near deployment stage. (I suspect that they may already be deployed, but that is basically a guess.)
It's rather obvious to me how to connect these dots, even if the dots are not crystal clear.
The spire "collapse" is not friendly towards the normal notions of CD, which (I presume) require explosives. The spire was not exploded. So, in this sense it does not support the CD view.
For me, though, I do not assume CD = 100% explosives, so this is not fatal to my viewpoint.
seems to me the floors were concrete, and the walls thick gypsum board.
i watched a video on pbs(you can download it from their website) on the construction of the towers. there was at least SOME reinforced concrete in the building, because i saw it being poured.
i don't know about the first tower (to collapse), but if you watch the video of the second tower (to collapse) there is definitely a spire which stand breifly, and then begins to tip, and then PLUMMETS. that's the 911eyewitness video, btw. i don't know about doctored photos, but i'm pretty sure it's not cgi in the video.
i don't know why either side would 'want' this to be true. it is just more data.
Just more data????
There is no "conventional"* explanation (that has any real plausibility) for this very unconventional phenomenon. That includes a FEMA-friendly gravity driven collapse. Since, from other considerations, we know that there must have been some extraordinary sources of energy introduced to bring about the collapse, we can conclude that it was an inside job that brought the towers down, even if some Arab patsies were used to crash planes.
In light of the lousy air defenses of that day (and a bunch of other reports) we can impute a US military aspect to the operation.
Now, if some exotic technology was required to reduce the spire to powder, who is most likely to have such technology? (We are excluding aliens, who probably wouldn't want this planet if it was offered on a silver platter.
)Just recently, is has made the news that the US has been working on space based weapons for twenty years, and that they are near deployment stage. (I suspect that they may already be deployed, but that is basically a guess.)
It's rather obvious to me how to connect these dots, even if the dots are not crystal clear.
The spire "collapse" is not friendly towards the normal notions of CD, which (I presume) require explosives. The spire was not exploded. So, in this sense it does not support the CD view.
For me, though, I do not assume CD = 100% explosives, so this is not fatal to my viewpoint.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 18 2006, 06:59 AM)
Maybe the three stooges can clear this up for us?
In light of the plausibility of many notions advanced on this thread, a three stooges theory might represent an improvement. At least, we can reject it with a laugh.
In light of the plausibility of many notions advanced on this thread, a three stooges theory might represent an improvement. At least, we can reject it with a laugh.
QUOTE (newton+Jan 18 2006, 04:58 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 18 2006, 08:48 PM)
Try just ABOVE the skylobbies.
Can you picture it?
Arthur
still disrupts what you are claiming is a continuous shaft, dude. yes, you're right, they would be above the skylobbies.
I don't think you get it.
When they designed this thing they stacked the SHAFTS on top of one another.
Now how do you think they got the elevators into the UPPER shafts?
You think they took them up the freight elevators?
Or maybe they just ran them up the ONE LONG CONTINUOUS SHAFT.
The fact that they only had the elevators running between floors, which allowed them to SHARE THE SAME SHAFTS is what saved space.
The Mechanics of an elevator don't require a FLOOR. They sit on TOP OF the Shaft.
Walls and Floors between shafts would ONLY make maint more difficult.
Think about it.
Arthur
Can you picture it?
Arthur
still disrupts what you are claiming is a continuous shaft, dude. yes, you're right, they would be above the skylobbies.
I don't think you get it.
When they designed this thing they stacked the SHAFTS on top of one another.
Now how do you think they got the elevators into the UPPER shafts?
You think they took them up the freight elevators?
Or maybe they just ran them up the ONE LONG CONTINUOUS SHAFT.
The fact that they only had the elevators running between floors, which allowed them to SHARE THE SAME SHAFTS is what saved space.
The Mechanics of an elevator don't require a FLOOR. They sit on TOP OF the Shaft.
Walls and Floors between shafts would ONLY make maint more difficult.
Think about it.
Arthur
This thread is nothing more than a preachers pew for X-Files aficionados. Twist your aluminum foil tightly around your head, tune the radio in your tooth to your own low frequensy brain waves and listen to yourself convince yourself of the impossible. No weapon is impossible if you can dream. No reality based senario is good enough if you believe. And no photographic evidence is good enough if you simply close eyes.
The express elevator to the Sky Lobby at the World Trade Center roared 24 feet past its stop injuring eight of 12 people trapped inside.
The trapped passengers - who were stuck in Elevator No. 20 about 15 feet above the 78th floor at Two World Trade Center - had to be escorted to safety in a heart-stopping operation conducted from the roof of a second, adjacent elevator.
"We didn't know if we would get out alive," Queens resident Richard Gallo, an electrical engineer at the building, told his wife, Helen.
"Everyone was screaming. There was blood all over the place. We were really scared that the elevator was going to plunge to the ground...."
"I've been riding the elevator for years" [added a co-worker]. "Occasionally they slip, it's not something you can focus on."
Others [present] described the crash as sounding like a horrendous "boom."
People "thought it was a bomb," said Kim Dunlap, a receptionist on the 100th floor. It rocked the building. There's never a dull moment at the World Trade Center."
The crash occurred around 8:30 a.m....when the elevator overshot the 78th floor and hit the top of the elevator shaft two flights above....
For about two hours, the 78th floor - the Sky Lobby - was awash in rescue personnel. "It was very chaotic," said administrative assistant Jodi Salmieri, 28. "Fire personnel, EMT, police were all over the place.
The car-to-car rescue had hearts racing.... Riding atop a 7 x 12 elevator roof... the heroes then straddled a 2-foot wide plank to reach the passengers through a "rescue door" leading into the crippled elevator.
Below them: 936 feet of dark.
"It's so high and the elevator shaft is so dark, that when you look down, you don't see anything at all.
"It's like an abyss," said Port Authority Police Officer Gregg Froehner....
Officers Tibor Toth and Michael Kuligoski were the first cops to reach the damaged elevator.
"When we opened the hatch,...I saw people all over the floor," Toth said. "One woman was there with an obvious broken ankle.
"There was a little bit of moaning and groaning. Mike went in there and gave them psychological first aid, saying things like, 'Don't be afraid. We're going to take care of you.'"
Seven of the 12 walked across the plank to Toth - each gripping one of Toth's hands and one of Kuligoski's while they stepped across - and rode down on the roof to the 78th floor.
The remaining five people had broken bones and fractures, cuts and bruises and had to be strapped onto stretchers and hoisted onto the elevator rood one-by-one.
"The doctor determined the worst case should stay on the elevator so he could help her," said Froehner. "She had little pulse in her ankle and he needed time to set it."
"There's not much room to move around the roof. It's slippery from the grease from the cables. You have to watch your step. It could have been a bad job."
Dr. Dario Gonzalez, the medical director of clinical affairs for the New York Fire Department played down his own role and gave credit where credit was due:
"There wasn't any panic," he said. "These are New Yorkers. They're used to everything."
Of course this was in Feb of 2000.
As it turns out, they really weren't used to 'everything' yet.
So from this we learn that there is a lot of head room above the elevators.
We also learn that there aren't walls between the shafts.
The express elevators are 7x12, they come in banks of 3, so we are talking about a shaft size of what, 30 x 15 or so? Extending over 900 feet or so down.
Arthur
The trapped passengers - who were stuck in Elevator No. 20 about 15 feet above the 78th floor at Two World Trade Center - had to be escorted to safety in a heart-stopping operation conducted from the roof of a second, adjacent elevator.
"We didn't know if we would get out alive," Queens resident Richard Gallo, an electrical engineer at the building, told his wife, Helen.
"Everyone was screaming. There was blood all over the place. We were really scared that the elevator was going to plunge to the ground...."
"I've been riding the elevator for years" [added a co-worker]. "Occasionally they slip, it's not something you can focus on."
Others [present] described the crash as sounding like a horrendous "boom."
People "thought it was a bomb," said Kim Dunlap, a receptionist on the 100th floor. It rocked the building. There's never a dull moment at the World Trade Center."
The crash occurred around 8:30 a.m....when the elevator overshot the 78th floor and hit the top of the elevator shaft two flights above....
For about two hours, the 78th floor - the Sky Lobby - was awash in rescue personnel. "It was very chaotic," said administrative assistant Jodi Salmieri, 28. "Fire personnel, EMT, police were all over the place.
The car-to-car rescue had hearts racing.... Riding atop a 7 x 12 elevator roof... the heroes then straddled a 2-foot wide plank to reach the passengers through a "rescue door" leading into the crippled elevator.
Below them: 936 feet of dark.
"It's so high and the elevator shaft is so dark, that when you look down, you don't see anything at all.
"It's like an abyss," said Port Authority Police Officer Gregg Froehner....
Officers Tibor Toth and Michael Kuligoski were the first cops to reach the damaged elevator.
"When we opened the hatch,...I saw people all over the floor," Toth said. "One woman was there with an obvious broken ankle.
"There was a little bit of moaning and groaning. Mike went in there and gave them psychological first aid, saying things like, 'Don't be afraid. We're going to take care of you.'"
Seven of the 12 walked across the plank to Toth - each gripping one of Toth's hands and one of Kuligoski's while they stepped across - and rode down on the roof to the 78th floor.
The remaining five people had broken bones and fractures, cuts and bruises and had to be strapped onto stretchers and hoisted onto the elevator rood one-by-one.
"The doctor determined the worst case should stay on the elevator so he could help her," said Froehner. "She had little pulse in her ankle and he needed time to set it."
"There's not much room to move around the roof. It's slippery from the grease from the cables. You have to watch your step. It could have been a bad job."
Dr. Dario Gonzalez, the medical director of clinical affairs for the New York Fire Department played down his own role and gave credit where credit was due:
"There wasn't any panic," he said. "These are New Yorkers. They're used to everything."
Of course this was in Feb of 2000.
As it turns out, they really weren't used to 'everything' yet.
So from this we learn that there is a lot of head room above the elevators.
We also learn that there aren't walls between the shafts.
The express elevators are 7x12, they come in banks of 3, so we are talking about a shaft size of what, 30 x 15 or so? Extending over 900 feet or so down.
Arthur
Does the poster in the foreground look like it has been affected by a 1000 degree 'pyroclastic flow'? does the police car? does the Coke truck in the background? They are all very close to the remains of one tower as witnessed by the perimeter columns in the picture. Surely if the 'pyroclastic flow' was at 1000 degrees then it would have scorched these objects. Hoffman, debunked yet again!
not so hot
Look, partial slabs of concrete that wasn't turned to powder!
slabs
No way for oxygen to get to the underground fires? Well maybe via the subway system, ya think!
subway station
not so hot
Look, partial slabs of concrete that wasn't turned to powder!
slabs
No way for oxygen to get to the underground fires? Well maybe via the subway system, ya think!
subway station
Thanks for the links and info, folks.
I've read your post, Schneibster, and I'll get back to you shortly. Unfortuneately just started a contract where we can gain a lot if we impress, so that has to be given some priority.
Catch you later
Gordon.
I've read your post, Schneibster, and I'll get back to you shortly. Unfortuneately just started a contract where we can gain a lot if we impress, so that has to be given some priority.
Catch you later
Gordon.
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.