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

Sensable
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 24 2006, 08:47 PM)
I just had to share the funniest thing I've seen all week...

Science Proves it!!!

Proof of evolution

You have an open mind... I can feel the draft from here. -Groucho Marks
Sensable
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 25 2006, 12:03 AM)
BBC DOCUMENTARY. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

QUOTE
The Power of Nightmares - Part I
Baby It’s Cold Outside”
In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.
The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The Power of Nightmares - Part I
Baby It’s Cold Outside”
In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.
The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

The Power of Nightmares Part II
Part II: The Phantom Victory

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1038.htm

QUOTE
The Power of Nightmares - Part III
The Shadows In The Cave
The Power of Nightmares assesses whether the threat from a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. In the concluding part of the series, the programme explains how the illusion was created and who benefits from it.

This is a must watch documentary - Broadcast 11/03/04 BBC 2 - Written and produced by Adam Curtis

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm

None of this matters because all of this could be true and it still doesn't mean the buildings didn't fall from fire.
yesitdid
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 24 2006, 05:08 AM)
I asked for references to theory - preferably free on the web - that I could study, and asked question trying to understand, on a forum where I initially presumed there were people who were
1) able to point me in the right direction and
2) willing to do so and
3) interested in trying to determine the truth, no matter where it lay

I was quite disappointed.*

And you characterize my efforts as worthy of condemnation because I was "asking somebody to teach me this (elastic dynamic analysis)"??

You are mischaracterizing my efforts, and I suggest you retract your claim. You have more credibility than some popes here, but if you want to sink to a lower level, I certainly can't stop you.

If the "engineers" at AH know so much about "elastic dynamic analysis", why didn't they themselves point out the gross inapplicability of it to understanding the collapse? And if they didn't know, why didn't they say so? Because "2+2 = 4", and they couldn't be bothered???

I don't have the time to research what YOU have written wrt to BZ, but I suspect that if I did, I might well find that you have interpreted their eq. 1 as pointing to something near a real condition that existed in the towers during the real, physical collapse. If so, is this somehow related to YOUR unwillingness to "teach me elastic dynamic analysis?"

It may well be that there are no real engineers who post at AH, or that there are none who are concerned about the WTC collapses, for one reason or another. I have no problem with that.

As for my attitude to those who know less than me: In the Randi Rhodes forum, I was asked to explain conservation of energy, by somebody who genuinely didn't know. I explained, and would not characterize my efforts as "teaching somebody physics". Answering questions to the best of one's ability, or at least pointing newbies and laymen in the right direction, is not a bad thing if one can spare the time. Thus, my request was not unreasonable, and I myself have fulfilled such requests by others. Other times I have not, and once in this forum, I stated that I did not have time to teach somebody physics. However, I did not use that as an excuse for allowing them to believe something that I thought was false, abeit based on what I had written.

* Mind you, I am appreciative of most of what JayUtah wrote, as far as it went, but in the case of BZ, it was clearly insufficient, in that it gives exactly the wrong impression. JayUtah might well dispute that, but as he stopped replying to my posts, I see no reason to concern myself with what he really thought I was understanding of his posts.

OK, I retract my claim that you were asking to be taught a course on elastic dynamic analysis on the forum.

However, those there that did have some understanding of it(JU specifically) obviously saw its value in analyzing the collapse. JU states that he has used eda but not in buildings but, IIRC, in aircraft design. IMO, your continued questions regarding the exact nature of the applicability of eda to the collapse would have required JU to take a course on that application of eda and then get back to you. I don't blame him for exiting the discussion at that point. Can you tell me what your reaction would have been had he stated this? I think i know, you would have then claimed that he did not know that eda was applicable, Foxx would have claimed victory and that JU was admitting defeat.

If you go to the bottom of the page of Bazant and Zhou's paper you will find more than one reference (IIRC) to books on the subject. They won't be available on the internet(except perhaps to purchase), few textbooks are.

Personally I get lost in the math of this analysis quickly. Too long since I did anything close to this(30 years in fact). However the basic principles seem straight forward and with a little intensive study I might be able to get a good handle on it. Like you though , I do have other commitments and responsibilities, work, family, etc. I simply don't have the continuous blocks of time required to do this. Nor do I really have the inclination to. It sounds like you at least have the later and I assume that you are much younger and unmarried( in my mind's eye anyway, perhaps I'm incorrect) and thus may have a lot more spare time.

I can assure you I do recognize that BZ are simplifying the situation in the towers to make the calculations less complex.

So basically I am saying that IMHO you have gotten to the level on this topic where if you want more you are going to have to study it yourself. Basically you have all that others can tell you about riding a bike, now you have to actually get on one . To stretch this analogy (and here is where we lose Foxx if he is following this. He does not do well with analogies, especially stretched ones cool.gif ) JU knows how to ride an ACME ten speed and you are asking him not only how to ride a bike but also how to ride an ACES ten speed. blink.gif
Dr. Morbius

Quote; Newton
i have just read dr. greenings paper, here: http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf.

he is not a conspiracy theorist, and found a 'natural' solution for thermite reactions triggered by molten aluminum hitting gypsum.

that is far more likely than all the pancake theories i've heard so far. i don't know enough about chemistry to refute or agree with it, but it sounds more reasonable than anything put forth by nonconspiracy theorists so far. it explains the molten metal in the basement, the explosions and the rapid nature of the collapse. (it, unfortunately doesn't explain the nist coverup, nor the motivations for destroying evidence. did china really need that scrap more than america? bizarre.)

this obviously brilliant scientist has also pointed out that tower seven is a 'problem', because it wasn't hit by an airplane. if molten aluminum causing thermite reactions was indeed the cause of the explosive demise of one and two, what happened to seven?

--------------------
the truth is out there. watch out it doesn't hit you in the head.

Quote;Newton

okay, greening's on my shyte list, now.
he claims the molten aluminum is causing 'natural' thermite reactions, and cites aluminum plants as an example of 'see, it explodes!'.
but, molten aluminum 'exploding' is a violent result of RAPID STEAM EXPANSION, and NOT a thermite reaction, as he implies.

the danger to aluminum workers is not the explosion itself, but rather the molten material SPLASHING on them.

i also find his 10% figure as a guesstimate of how much concrete was crushed, welll, ummmm..........no.

so, here is another elaborate 'science' paper which does nothing but muddy the waters.

thank you, dr. greening, for proving that there is an army of obfuscating scientists out to hide the truth.

Hmmm....another victim of Greening. Newton got off easy. I noticed you didn't cut the other guy, zoktoberfest, any slack. Quite a humbling retraction. Me thinks he ain't comin back back.
frater plecticus
QUOTE
None of this matters because all of this could be true and it still doesn't mean the buildings didn't fall from fire.




besides, we live in a democracy (of sorts) still, I can post what I want...
frater plecticus
QUOTE
None of this matters because all of this could be true and it still doesn't mean the buildings didn't fall from fire.




besides, we live in a democracy (of sorts) still, I can post what I want...
Guest
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 25 2006, 09:10 AM)
QUOTE
None of this matters because all of this could be true and it still doesn't mean the buildings didn't fall from fire.




besides, we live in a democracy (of sorts) still, I can post what I want...

This is true, and I can point out it doesn't matter all I want. "God bless america" and all that. tongue.gif
brian
zoktoberfest, if we were all big enough to admit our mistakes or misinterpretations the truth would be a great deal nearer.

Well done and please keep posting in your inimitable way .

According to Russian General, 9/11 was a Globalist Inside Job

“The organizers of the 9/11 attacks were the political & business circles interested in destabilizing the world order"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1788




brian


Judge Reggie Walton: From Oklahoma City to 9/11 to Valerie Plame/Libby Case

--As Edmonds has stated, the cast of players she stumbled upon during her time at the FBI and some of the very same people that Valerie Plame was investigating involved the actions of top officials in the government and a lot of illegal activities that include multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operations, black-market nuclear sales to terrorists and unsavory regimes. In an August 5th interview, Edmonds said, “You can start from the AIPAC angle. You can start from the Plame case. You can start from my case. They all end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same nucleus of people.”

Sibel Edmonds testified to all of this and more in a closed session with the Philip Zelikow led 9/11 Commission. Obviously, her testimony was considered too controversial as the Commission completely omitted the information from their final report. Now, the Bush administration has again called on the shadowy Judge Walton to insure that the truth regarding Edmonds , Plame, Libby , Iraq , 9/11 and all things Bush never sees the light of day. --

Full article - http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.ph...order=0&thold=0

See also Jersey Girls on NSA/911

September 11th Advocates -- Regarding NSA Domestic Surveillance

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.ph...order=0&thold=0
Sensable
QUOTE (Dr. Morbius+Jan 25 2006, 05:35 AM)
Quote; Newton
i have just read dr. greenings paper, here: http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf.

he is not a conspiracy theorist, and found a 'natural' solution for thermite reactions triggered by molten aluminum hitting gypsum.

that is far more likely than all the pancake theories i've heard so far. i don't know enough about chemistry to refute or agree with it, but it sounds more reasonable than anything put forth by nonconspiracy theorists so far. it explains the molten metal in the basement, the explosions and the rapid nature of the collapse. (it, unfortunately doesn't explain the nist coverup, nor the motivations for destroying evidence. did china really need that scrap more than america? bizarre.)

this obviously brilliant scientist has also pointed out that tower seven is a 'problem', because it wasn't hit by an airplane. if molten aluminum causing thermite reactions was indeed the cause of the explosive demise of one and two, what happened to seven?

--------------------
the truth is out there. watch out it doesn't hit you in the head.

Quote;Newton

okay, greening's on my shyte list, now.
he claims the molten aluminum is causing 'natural' thermite reactions, and cites aluminum plants as an example of 'see, it explodes!'.
but, molten aluminum 'exploding' is a violent result of RAPID STEAM EXPANSION, and NOT a thermite reaction, as he implies.

the danger to aluminum workers is not the explosion itself, but rather the molten material SPLASHING on them.

i also find his 10% figure as a guesstimate of how much concrete was crushed, welll, ummmm..........no.

so, here is another elaborate 'science' paper which does nothing but muddy the waters.

thank you, dr. greening, for proving that there is an army of obfuscating scientists out to hide the truth.

Hmmm....another victim of Greening. Newton got off easy. I noticed you didn't cut the other guy, zoktoberfest, any slack. Quite a humbling retraction. Me thinks he ain't comin back back.

It's obvious to anyone who sees the videos of the collapse close up that it indeed pancaked. The firemen on the seen even talked about the pancaking in some detail. (CT sites have been twisting this video because if they don't they have nothing) One fireman said something to the effect (Paraphrase) "I heard BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM" while he was using his hands to indicate the booms were per floor. He said it's like they planed to bring it down but he was only saying what it looked like. This is EXACTLY what you would expect if the floors pancaked as well. The first BOOM/Explosion would have been from the first trusses falling and the concrete slabs from a floor hitting the floor below. As this happened you would expect the windows on the floor where the concrete fell to blow out dust and debris. What else would happen? The load would shift quickly, further straining other weakened and already strained steel columns. A domino effect would ensue.

In one video (Again ironically a CT site video) you can see the walls being clearly pulled in just before the collapse. This is the '911 witness' video. At the end of the first video they talk about the helicopter suggesting it's a Fema helicopter. (There is another video from inside that exact helicopter. It was a NYC police helicopter and the passengers were horrified. Just another CT lie) Right after this they show a split window with the helicopter which pulls back to show the building from an angle not shown in most videos. At the moment the camera pulls back you can see the perimeter columns of the tower being pulled in quickly, then the building begins the pancake shortly after.

I ask, what in the world would you expect concrete floors slamming into a floor below to sound like? I mean given that we live on earth and not the vacuum of space... blink.gif Do you expect it to make a sound like a whisper? A whoosh? or a BOOM!...

Another point never talked about is the fact that the towers were a 110 story tuning fork. Whatever slams into the steel above would resonate through the whole building wouldn't it? We are talking about steel columns which run the length of the building without concrete covering it. The construction wouldn't help lower the sound of concrete floors slamming into floors below.

Most of the slabs of concrete had the mother of all jack hammers on it. If I can smash a piece of concrete with a sledge hammer and it breaks in little pieces (At point of impact) why wouldn't the concrete slabs, which has 110 stories worth of hammering, not turn to dust? (Not all of them did but it explains why some did)

Once again, the scrap wasn't sold by the federal government or NIST. It was sold by the scrap yards and the state. The mayor even tried to stop the sale. Their were millions of dollars worth of steel. Why wouldn't good old fashioned corporate greed not be the motive for the sale? Some went to making coins, others went in the making of the USS New York. Why would the scrap yards and the state government help the federal government cover up the largest mass murder in US history? It just doesn't make any sense what so ever... blink.gif
Sensable
QUOTE (brian+Jan 25 2006, 01:46 PM)
zoktoberfest, if we were all big enough to admit our mistakes or misinterpretations the truth would be a great deal nearer.

Well done and please keep posting in your inimitable way .

According to Russian General, 9/11 was a Globalist Inside Job

“The organizers of the 9/11 attacks were the political & business circles interested in destabilizing the world order"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1788

Well if "Global Research" say it it must be true! dry.gif
frater plecticus
Well if "Global Research" say it it must be true!


why ?
Lon Waters
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 25 2006, 02:49 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 25 2006, 01:46 PM)
zoktoberfest, if we were all big enough to admit our mistakes or misinterpretations the truth would be a great deal nearer.

Well done and please keep posting in your inimitable way .

According to Russian General, 9/11 was a Globalist Inside Job

“The organizers of the 9/11 attacks were the political & business circles interested in destabilizing the world order"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1788

Well if "Global Research" say it it must be true! dry.gif

If I am reading this correctly, global research did not say it, they reported that a Russian general said it.
adoucette
He's the Chief of Staff and offers NO EVIDENCE to support his assertions.

Which include:
QUOTE
at Axis for Peace 2005 conference, he now explains that international terrorism does not exist


Kum Bye Ya....

Kum Bye Ya, my lord, Kum bye Ya.


laugh.gif

Arthur
frater plecticus
Because terrorism is a local problem, and not a global or international one.


QUOTE
Cognitive linguistics professor George Lakoff, founder of the progressive think tank the Rockridge Institute, has argued, with respect to the phrase "War on Terror", "Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. Terror is not the person we're fighting, the 'terrorist.' The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The 'war on terror' is not about stopping you from being afraid, it's about making you afraid." He adds "...terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem." Lakoff believes that the frame invoked by the phrase plays a key role in the political changes enacted by President Bush through the implication of the frame.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror
adoucette
Yeah, those guys flying the planes on 9/11 were all homies from Queens.

NOT

Arthur
frater plecticus
SECOND TIME ROUND

NOTE THE QUALITY OF THE PROOF......FOR 9-11, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, ETC.


User posted image

User posted image

QUOTE
This document was lodged in the US District Court of Maine by FBI Agent, James K. Lechner. It details the property found in Mohamed Atta's car and his bags that did not make it onto the flight out of Boston. The property includes his handwritten will in Arabic. The statement also describes a phone call which was made by a flight attendant during the hijack on American Airlines Flight 11.



User posted image

The first person to die during the 9/11 attacks, Daniel Lewin, was allegedly killed by gunfire on flight 11, even though according to the official story, the hijackers were only armed with boxcutters :

The case of Daniel Lewin
http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/archive/...hp/t-57780.html

He may have been the first person to die in the events of 9/11, but the question of how he died has some big implications.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This document was lodged in the US District Court of Maine by FBI Agent, James K. Lechner. It details the property found in Mohamed Atta's car and his bags that did not make it onto the flight out of Boston. The property includes his handwritten will in Arabic. The statement also describes a phone call which was made by a flight attendant during the hijack on American Airlines Flight 11.



User posted image

The first person to die during the 9/11 attacks, Daniel Lewin, was allegedly killed by gunfire on flight 11, even though according to the official story, the hijackers were only armed with boxcutters :

The case of Daniel Lewin
http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/archive/...hp/t-57780.html

He may have been the first person to die in the events of 9/11, but the question of how he died has some big implications.
The Executive Memo gives details of the events on Flight 11 in the second paragraph:

"At approximately 9:18 am, it was reported that two of the crew members in the cockpit were stabbed. The flight then descended with no communication from the flight crew members. The American Airlines Principal Security Inspector (PSI) was notified by Suzanne Clark of the American Airlines Corporate Headquarters that an on board flight attendant contacted American Airlines Operations Center and informed them that a passenger located in seat 10B had shot and killed a passenger in 9B at 9:20 am. The passenger killed was Daniel Lewin, shot by passenger Satam Al Suqami. One bullet was reported to have been fired."

The report went on to say that at 9:25 am, Flight 11 crashed directly into one of the trade towers.

If this memo were true, then by all other media accounts, including Sierra Times.com, Daniel Lewin was shot and killed on Flight 11 approximately 35 minutes after the plane had crashed into the north tower. September 11 media reports concur, that Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center between 8:45 and 8:50 am. According to its records, Sierra Times had reported two planes had crashed into the WTC at 6:03 Pacific Time, via direct e-mail based on live television accounts, and phone conversations with staff and witnesses from New York City and Washington, D.C. This was 9:03 Eastern Time, 22 minutes before the executive memo stated the impact of even the first plane.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=26626


QUOTE
In a series of exclusive interviews about the events of 9/11, Correspondent Scott Pelley spent two hours with Mr. Bush - one on Air Force One and another in the Oval Office - just before the first anniversary of 9/11.

60 Minutes II found that the president was still moved, sometimes to tears, when he remembered Sept. 11.

“I can remember sitting right here in this office thinking about the consequences of what had taken place and realizing it was the defining moment in the history of the United States,” says President Bush. “I didn’t need any legal briefs, I didn’t need any consultations, I knew we were at war.”

Mr. Bush says the first hours were frustrating. He watched the horrifying pictures, but the TV signal was breaking up. His calls to Cheney were cutting out. And he says he pounded his desk shouting, “This is inexcusable. Get me the vice president.”

“I was trying to clear the fog of war, and there is a fog of war," says the president. "Information was just flying from all directions.”

Card brought in the reports. There was word Camp David had been hit. A jet was thought to be targeting Mr. Bush’s ranch.

“I remember hearing that the State Department might have been hit, or that the White House had a fire in it," says Card. "So we were hearing lots of different information."

They also feared that Air Force One itself was a target. Cheney told the president there was a credible threat against the plane. Using the code name for Air Force One, Mr. Bush told an aide, “Angel is next.” The threat was passed to presidential pilot Col. Mark Tillman.

article continues...

Mr. Bush had a question for CIA Director George Tenet. "George Tenet was just asked, 'Who do you think did this to us,'" recalls Rice. "He said, 'Sir, I believe its al Qaeda. We’re doing the assessment but it looks like, it feels like, it smells like al Qaeda.'”

The evidence would build. FBI Director Robert Mueller says that an essential clue came from one of the hijacked planes before it crashed. A flight attendant on American Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office as the plane was hijacked and give them the seat numbers of the hijackers.

“That was the first piece of hard evidence," says Mueller. "We could then go to the manifest, find out who was sitting in those seats and immediately conduct an investigation of those individuals, as opposed to taking all the passengers on the plane and going through a process of elimination.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/...ain521718.shtml


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In a series of exclusive interviews about the events of 9/11, Correspondent Scott Pelley spent two hours with Mr. Bush - one on Air Force One and another in the Oval Office - just before the first anniversary of 9/11.

60 Minutes II found that the president was still moved, sometimes to tears, when he remembered Sept. 11.

“I can remember sitting right here in this office thinking about the consequences of what had taken place and realizing it was the defining moment in the history of the United States,” says President Bush. “I didn’t need any legal briefs, I didn’t need any consultations, I knew we were at war.”

Mr. Bush says the first hours were frustrating. He watched the horrifying pictures, but the TV signal was breaking up. His calls to Cheney were cutting out. And he says he pounded his desk shouting, “This is inexcusable. Get me the vice president.”

“I was trying to clear the fog of war, and there is a fog of war," says the president. "Information was just flying from all directions.”

Card brought in the reports. There was word Camp David had been hit. A jet was thought to be targeting Mr. Bush’s ranch.

“I remember hearing that the State Department might have been hit, or that the White House had a fire in it," says Card. "So we were hearing lots of different information."

They also feared that Air Force One itself was a target. Cheney told the president there was a credible threat against the plane. Using the code name for Air Force One, Mr. Bush told an aide, “Angel is next.” The threat was passed to presidential pilot Col. Mark Tillman.

article continues...

Mr. Bush had a question for CIA Director George Tenet. "George Tenet was just asked, 'Who do you think did this to us,'" recalls Rice. "He said, 'Sir, I believe its al Qaeda. We’re doing the assessment but it looks like, it feels like, it smells like al Qaeda.'”

The evidence would build. FBI Director Robert Mueller says that an essential clue came from one of the hijacked planes before it crashed. A flight attendant on American Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office as the plane was hijacked and give them the seat numbers of the hijackers.

“That was the first piece of hard evidence," says Mueller. "We could then go to the manifest, find out who was sitting in those seats and immediately conduct an investigation of those individuals, as opposed to taking all the passengers on the plane and going through a process of elimination.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/...ain521718.shtml


(8:21 a.m.): Boston Controller Suspects Something Seriously Wrong with Flight 11, but NORAD Not Notified
        Boston flight controller Pete Zalewski, handling Flight 11, sees that the flight is off course and that the plane has turned off both transponder and radio. Zalewski later claims he turns to his supervisor and says, “Would you please come over here? I think something is seriously wrong with this plane. I don't know what. It's either mechanical, electrical, I think, but I'm not sure.” When asked if he suspected a hijacking at this point, he replies, “Absolutely not. No way.” According to the 9/11 Commission, “the supervisor instructed the controller [presumably Zalewski] to follow standard operating procedures for handling a ‘no radio’ aircraft once the controller told the supervisor the transponder had been turned off.” Another flight controller, Tom Roberts, has another nearby American Airlines Flight try to contact Flight 11. There is still no response. The flight is now “drastically off course” but NORAD is still not notified. [MSNBC, 9/11/02 (cool.gif; 9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04] Note that this response contradicts flight control manager Glenn Michael's assertion that Flight 11 was considered a possible hijacking as soon as the transponder was discovered turned off.
People and organizations involved: Glenn Michael, North American Aerospace Defense Command, Tom Roberts, Pete Zalewski 
         
(8:21 a.m.): Flight 11 Attendant Ong Phones in Hijack Report, Officials Doubt Validity
       
Betty Ong.
Flight 11 attendant Betty Ong calls Vanessa Minter, an American Airlines reservations agent in North Carolina, using a seatback Airfone from the back of the plane. Ong speaks to Minter and an unidentified man for about two minutes. Then supervisor Nydia Gonzalez is patched in to the conference call as well. Ong says, “The cockpit's not answering. Somebody's stabbed in business class and ... I think there's mace ... that we can't breathe. I don't know, I think We're getting hijacked.” A minute later, she continues, “And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there's somebody stabbed in business class. And there's ... we can't breathe in business class. Somebody's got mace or something ... I'm sitting in the back. Somebody's coming back from business. If you can hold on for one second, they're coming back.” As this quote shows, other flight attendants relay information from the front of the airplane to Ong sitting in the back, and she periodically waits for updates. She goes on, “I think the guys are up there [in the cockpit]. They might have gone there—jammed the way up there, or something. Nobody can call the cockpit. We can't even get inside.” The first four and a half minutes of the call is later played in a public 9/11 Commission hearing. Ong apparently continues speaking to Gonzalez and Minter until the plane crashes. [New York Observer, 2/11/04; 9/11 Commission Report, 1/27/04] 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey, who has heard more recordings than have been made public, says that some officials on the ground greet her account skeptically: “They did not believe her. They said, ‘Are you sure?’ They asked her to confirm that it wasn't air-rage. Our people on the ground were not prepared for a hijacking.” [New York Times, 4/18/04 Sources: Bob Kerrey]
People and organizations involved: Betty Ong, Nydia Gonzalez, Vanessa Minter 
         
8:21 a.m.: Sweeney's Call Reaches American Headquarters, but Managers Cover Up the News
       
Amy (Madeline) Sweeney.
American Airlines Flight service manager Michael Woodward is listening to Flight 11 attendant Amy Sweeney on the telephone, and he wants to pass on the information he is hearing from her. Since there is no tape recorder, he calls Nancy Wyatt, the supervisor of pursers at Logan Airport. Holding telephones in both hands, he repeats to Wyatt everything that Sweeney is saying to him. Wyatt in turn simultaneously transmits his account to the airline's Fort Worth, Texas, headquarters. The conversation between Wyatt and managers at headquarters is recorded. All vital details from Sweeney's call reach American Airlines' top management almost instantly. However, according to victims' relatives who later hear this recording, the two managers at headquarters immediately begin discussing a cover-up of the hijacking details. They say, “don't spread this around. Keep it close,” “Keep it quiet,” and “Let's keep this among ourselves. What else can we find out from our own sources about what's going on?” One former American Airlines employee who has also heard this recording recalls, “In Fort Worth, two managers in SOC [Systems Operations Control] were sitting beside each other and hearing it. They were both saying, ‘Do not pass this along. Let's keep it right here. Keep it among the five of us.’ ” Apparently, this decision prevents early and clear evidence of a hijacking from being shared during the crisis. Gerard Arpey, American Airlines' executive vice president for operations, soon hears details of the hijacking from flight attendant Betty Ong's phone call (see (8:21 a.m.)) at 8:30 a.m. (see 8:30 a.m.), but apparently, he does not learn of Sweeney's call until much later. Victims' relatives will later question whether lives could have been saved if only this information had been quickly shared with other airplanes. [New York Observer, 6/17/04]
People and organizations involved: Madeline ("Amy") Sweeney, American Airlines, Nancy Wyatt, Michael Woodward 
         
(8:22 a.m.): Flight 11 Attendant Sweeney Phones in Hijacking Details
       
Flight attendants Karen Martin and Barbara Arestegui are apparently stabbed early in the hijacking of Flight 11.
Flight 11 attendant Amy (Madeline) Sweeney borrows a calling card from flight attendant Sara Low and uses an Airfone to try to call the American Airlines flight services office at Boston's Logan Airport. She makes her first attempt at 8:22 a.m., but this quickly disconnects, as does a second attempt at 8:24. Further attempts at 8:25 and 8:29 are cut off after she reports someone hurt on the flight. The respondent to the call mistakenly thinks Sweeney's flight number that she reports is 12. Hearing there is a problem with an American Airlines plane, Michael Woodward, an American Airlines flight service manager, goes to American's gate area at the airport with a colleague, and realizes Flight 12 has not yet departed. He returns to the office to try to clarify the situation, then takes the phone and speaks to Sweeney himself. Because Woodward and Sweeney are friends, he does not have to verify the call is not a hoax. The call is not recorded, but Woodward takes detailed notes. According to the 9/11 Commission, the call between them lasts about 12 minutes, from 8:32 a.m. to 8:44 a.m. Accounts prior to the 9/11 Commission report spoke of one continuous call from around 8:20. [New York Observer, 2/11/04; ABC News, 7/18/02; 9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/24/04, pp. 6 and 453] Sweeney calmly tells Woodward, “Listen, and listen to me very carefully. I'm on Flight 11. The airplane has been hijacked.” [ABC News, 7/18/02] According to one account, she gives him the seat locations of three hijackers: 9D, 9G, and 10B. She says they are all of Middle Eastern descent, and one speaks English very well. [New York Observer, 2/11/04] Another account states that she identifies four hijackers (but still not the five said to be on the plane), and notes that not all the seats she gave matched up with the seats assigned to the hijackers on their tickets. [ABC News, 7/18/02; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01 ©] She says she cannot contact the cockpit, and does not believe the pilots are flying the plane any longer. [New York Observer, 2/11/04] According to a later Los Angeles Times report, “Even as she was relating details about the hijackers, the men were storming the front of the plane and ‘had just gained access to the cockpit,’ ” (Note that Sweeney witnesses the storming of the cockpit at least seven minutes after radio contact from Flight 11 stops and at least one of the hijackers begins taking control of the cockpit.) [Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01 ©] She says the hijackers have stabbed the two first-class flight attendants, Barbara Arestegui and Karen Martin. She adds, “A hijacker cut the throat of a business-class passenger [later identified as Daniel Lewin], and he appears to be dead (see (Before 8:20 a.m.)).” She also says the hijackers have brought a bomb into the cockpit. Woodward asks Sweeney, “How do you know it's a bomb?” She answers, “Because the hijackers showed me a bomb.” She describes its yellow and red wires. Sweeney continues talking with Woodward until Flight 11 crashes. [Boston Globe, 11/23/01; New York Observer, 2/11/04]
People and organizations involved: Karen Martin, Daniel Lewin, Michael Woodward, Barbara Arestegui, Sara Low, Madeline ("Amy") Sweeney


QUOTE
Investigators find a remarkable number of possessions left behind by the hijackers:
Two of Mohamed Atta's bags are found on 9/11. They contain a handheld electronic flight computer, a simulator procedures manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft, two videotapes relating to “air tours” of the Boeing 757 and 747 aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, Atta's passport, his will, his international driver's license, a religious cassette tape, airline uniforms, a letter of recommendation, “education related documentation” and a note (see September 28, 2001) to other hijackers on how to mentally prepare for the hijacking. [Associated Press, 10/5/01; Sydney Morning Herald, 9/15/01; Boston Globe, 9/18/01; Independent, 9/29/01]
Marwan Alshehhi's rental car is discovered at Boston's Logan Airport containing an Arabic language flight manual, a pass giving access to restricted areas at the airport, documents containing a name on the passenger list of one of the flights, and the names of other suspects. The name of the flight school where Atta and Alshehhi studied, Huffman Aviation, is also found in the car. [Los Angeles Times, 9/13/01]
A car registered to Nawaf Alhazmi is found at Washington's Dulles Airport on September 12. Inside is a copy of Atta's letter to the other hijackers, a cashier's check made out to a flight school in Phoenix, four drawings of the cockpit of a 757 jet, a box cutter-type knife, maps of Washington and New York, and a page with notes and phone numbers. [Arizona Daily Star, 9/28/01; Cox News Service, 10/21/01; Die Zeit, 10/1/02]
A rental car is found in an airport parking lot in Portland, Maine. Investigators are able to collect fingerprints and hair samples for DNA analysis. [Portland Press Herald, 10/14/01]
A Boston hotel room contains airplane and train schedules. [Sydney Morning Herald, 9/15/01]
FBI agents carry out numerous garbage bags of evidence from a Florida apartment where Saeed Alghamdi lived. [CNN, 9/17/01 (cool.gif]
Two days before 9/11, a hotel owner in Deerfield Beach, Florida, finds a box cutter left in a hotel room used by Marwan Alshehhi and two unidentified men. The owner checks the nearby trash and finds a duffel bag containing Boeing 757 manuals, three illustrated martial arts books, an 8-inch stack of East Coast flight maps, a three-ring binder full of handwritten notes, an English-German dictionary, an airplane fuel tester, and a protractor. The FBI seizes all the items when they are notified on September 12 (except the binder of notes, which the owner apparently threw away). [Miami Herald, 9/16/01; Associated Press, 9/16/01 (cool.gif]
In an apartment rented by Ziad Jarrah and Ahmed Alhaznawi, the FBI finds a notebook, videotape, and photocopies of their passports. [Miami Herald, 9/15/01]
In a bar the night before 9/11, after making predictions of a attack on America the next day, the hijackers leave a business card and a copy of the Koran at the bar. The FBI also recovers the credit card receipts from when they paid for their drinks and lap dances. [Associated Press, 9/14/01]
A September 13 security sweep of Boston airport's parking garage uncovers items left behind by the hijackers: a box cutter, a pamphlet written in Arabic, and a credit card. [Washington Post, 9/16/01]
A few hours after the attacks, suicide notes that some of the hijackers wrote to their parents are found in New York. Credit card receipts showing that some of the hijackers paid for flight training in the US are also found. [Los Angeles Times, 9/13/01]
A FedEx bill is found in a trash can at the Comfort Inn in Portland, Maine, where Atta stayed the night before 9/11. The bill leads to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, allowing investigators to determine much of the funding for 9/11. [Newsweek, 11/11/01; Times of London, 12/1/01] The hijackers past whereabouts can even be tracked by their pizza purchases. An expert points out: “Most people pay cash for pizza. These [hijackers] paid with a credit card. That was an odd thing.” [San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/3/02] “In the end, they left a curiously obvious trail—from martial arts manuals, maps, a Koran, Internet and credit card fingerprints. Maybe they were sloppy, maybe they did not care, maybe it was a gesture of contempt of a culture they considered weak and corrupt.” [Miami Herald, 9/22/01] Note The New Yorker's quote of a former high-level intelligence official: “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the FBI to chase.” [New Yorker, 10/1/01]
People and organizations involved: Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ziad Jarrah, Nawaf Alhazmi, Huffman Aviation, Mohamed Atta, Marwan Alshehhi, Washington Dulles International Airport, Federal Bureau of Investigation
http://tinyurl.com/byva4

It started the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. In the immediate shocked aftermath of the attacks, these findings were somehow reassuring: American intelligence was on the case, the perpetrators were no longer faceless.

In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.

Yet we were still in the infancy of coincidence. On September 24 2001 the belongings of alleged terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui threw up a cropdusting manual, while four days later came Atta's suicide note, the one with the counsel to shine your shoes before you meet your maker - a piece of advice which seemed suspiciously Norman Rockwellesque. It was here, too, that the stuff about 72 virgins awaiting him in heaven first started to circulate.

In December 2001 the laughing, boasting video of Osama bin Laden was unearthed in a house in Jalalabad. The new year saw no let-up in this serendipitous trove - January turned up an email sent by "shoe bomber" Richard Reid from a Paris cybercafe (and found on its hard disk) shortly before boarding the Paris-Miami flight in which he claimed responsibility in advance for downing the plane. (Luckily or carelessly, depending on your perspective, Reid had pocketed a business card from the cybercafe.)

Of course you could interpret these discoveries differently. You could detect in them the clear hand of American propaganda. This isn't, of course, to claim a dirty tricks department somewhere in the heart of Washington. That would have you immediately accused of peddling conspiracy theories, though I'm coming to think that conspiracy theories have had a bad press. What are they, after all, but "joined-up government" by another name?

In conclusion, We Do Not Know The Actual Sponsorship of 9/11

The sole case presented against Osama bin Laden & Al Qaeda for the 9/11 bombings was a white paper entitled, "Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States." Published in October 2001 by Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, this work acknowledges up front that it would not stand up in a court of law:

"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document."

The above statement is a classic example of how the authority of our national security state structure is founded on unaccountability, the antithesis of a truly democratic governing process. With the intrinsic use of secrecy and wholesale suppression of information, we are consistently relegated to an infantile status of not knowing the full scope of reasoning officials employ in their policy and law-making decisions.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page3682.asp
guest1
WTC7 was impacted. It was struck by debris from the WTC1 collapse. That's what started the fires in WTC7. Some of the columns near the ground level may have been damaged or taken out because of the impact.

The fires were not extinguished. If you watch the video of its collapse, there is still heavy dark smoke billowing from WTC7 just as it collapsed.

WTC7 had an unusual structure near ground level consisting of three load transfer trusses. It was a way a redirecting vertical loads carried by columns of the entire building above it to columns below that were not concentric with columns above. This was done because of the Con Ed substation in the lower levels which blocked the use of columns in that area. Failure of those trusses due to weaking by fire is a plausible explanation for the collapse.

Before WTC7 collapsed globally, the penthouse on the east side sank. This section was directly over one of the three load transfer trusses. It's plausible that this truss failed.
cosmo
QUOTE (guest1+Jan 26 2006, 01:03 AM)
WTC7 had an unusual structure near ground level consisting of three load transfer trusses...Before WTC7 collapsed globally, the penthouse on the east side sank. This section was directly over one of the three load transfer trusses. .

Where did you get this information?
rawfooddan
everyone should take a look at something i put together. We all know the world trade center towers came down pretty fast. most estimates put it at around 10.5 seconds for one tower and 9.5 for the other.

What if you had 109 4 inch thick concrete slabs- each 12 feet apart, extending to over 1350 feet in the air. there is no metal support structure, no bolts holding the floors, no support trusses, no nothing. It is in a vacuum too, so no air resistance.

lets use the formula Vf = (Vo^2 + 768)^0.5
and
seconds per floor = (Vf - Vo)/32.1

768 comes from 12*64, 12 is the distance in feet and 64 is 32 *2, the integral of the distance formulaor so i'm told


now imagine the top floor starts to fall, and the the instant it hits the next floor that floor starts to fall and so on down the line. We know the first floor will reach roughly 27.7 ft/second before it hits the next slab. and will take about 0.86 seconds. after it hits the next floor it's speed will be cut in half to 13.9, it will take those two floors 0.53 seconds to hit the next floor. Once those two pancaked floors hit the third floors they are going 30.9 ft/second, after they hit the speed becomes 2/3rds.... if we repeat this all the way down we can come up with a time which is 14.68 seconds.

note that there is no resistance from the metal support structure, and yet still the wtc towers came down faster than what this simple algorithm suggests. Surely the tower would have provided more resistance than its own inertia.

Now lets model the collapses as they started, one at the 93rd floor and one at the 75th floor. I use the same method as above but adjusting for the number of floors. to speed the collapse i assume that the intact piledriver section stays intact, and that the mass of all the floors work together all the way down, then once it hits the ground the piledriver section loses its unity and all the slabs fall individually at the speed of gravity.

this model shows a 93rd floor collapse of 12.1 seconds, and a 75th floor collapse of 11.03 seconds. This unrealistic model is still above the apparent time that each towers took to collapse.

view my spreadsheet here:

http://www.usd.edu/~dstrong/collapse%20time.xls

if it asks for a password just hit cancel, it should still display for you.

this seems to show that the falling debris were not hitting stationary objects, which would seem to support the idea that a demolition proceded the falling mass of pancaked or pulverized floors.



Sensable
QUOTE (rawfooddan+Jan 26 2006, 03:16 PM)
everyone should take a look at something i put together. We all know the world trade center towers came down pretty fast. most estimates put it at around 10.5 seconds for one tower and 9.5 for the other.

What if you had 109 4 inch thick concrete slabs- each 12 feet apart, extending to over 1350 feet in the air. there is no metal support structure, no bolts holding the floors, no support trusses, no nothing. It is in a vacuum too, so no air resistance.

lets use the formula Vf = (Vo^2 + 768)^0.5
and
seconds per floor = (Vf - Vo)/32.1

768 comes from 12*64, 12 is the distance in feet and 64 is 32 *2, the integral of the distance formulaor so i'm told


now imagine the top floor starts to fall, and the the instant it hits the next floor that floor starts to fall and so on down the line. We know the first floor will reach roughly 27.7 ft/second before it hits the next slab. and will take about 0.86 seconds. after it hits the next floor it's speed will be cut in half to 13.9, it will take those two floors 0.53 seconds to hit the next floor. Once those two pancaked floors hit the third floors they are going 30.9 ft/second, after they hit the speed becomes 2/3rds.... if we repeat this all the way down we can come up with a time which is 14.68 seconds.

note that there is no resistance from the metal support structure, and yet still the wtc towers came down faster than what this simple algorithm suggests. Surely the tower would have provided more resistance than its own inertia.

Now lets model the collapses as they started, one at the 93rd floor and one at the 75th floor. I use the same method as above but adjusting for the number of floors. to speed the collapse i assume that the intact piledriver section stays intact, and that the mass of all the floors work together all the way down, then once it hits the ground the piledriver section loses its unity and all the slabs fall individually at the speed of gravity.

this model shows a 93rd floor collapse of 12.1 seconds, and a 75th floor collapse of 11.03 seconds. This unrealistic model is still above the apparent time that each towers took to collapse.

view my spreadsheet here:

http://www.usd.edu/~dstrong/collapse%20time.xls

if it asks for a password just hit cancel, it should still display for you.

this seems to show that the falling debris were not hitting stationary objects, which would seem to support the idea that a demolition proceded the falling mass of pancaked or pulverized floors.

Dude, we already proved the building didn't fall anywhere near free fall. All it takes is looking at the photographic evidence. How can steel not only outpace the building collapse but the debris cloud which was also going faster than the building collapse? Assuming the steel had rockets pointed to the ground it's safe to say the building didn't free fall.

This was all worked out nicely by a member by page 5 of the large thread.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884

We also have photographic evidence the core was standing well after the building collapsed. What could have possibly happened to the floors if they didn't pancake? Did they fly off the core? You can also clearly see on a number of videos debris coming out of the windows as each floor impacts the next and forces the air out of the way.

The pancake happened.
Sensable
QUOTE (guest1+Jan 26 2006, 01:03 AM)
Before WTC7 collapsed globally, the penthouse on the east side sank.  This section was directly over one of the three load transfer trusses.  It's plausible that this truss failed.

A very important point. Note that in 99.9 percent of the CT videos leave this part out. Gee, I wonder why... blink.gif

Penthouse falls first
gordon
It's plausible that this truss failed.

How?

Gordon.
Sensable
This is how stupid you CTers are... This memo frater plecticus talks about was written on the same day as 9/11 so how in the hell could anyone know for certainty that anyone was shot. The source is questionable. World Net Daily is not exactly known for checking it's sources.

Anyone who takes a memo writen on the same day as the event and concluding anything from it has little credibility. Anyone who takes a memo from the same day and also believe out of hand world net daily has a double credibility problem.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2004/wndjoke.html

No doubt this was planted by Rove to make liberals look stupid. ph34r.gif
Sensable
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 26 2006, 04:38 PM)
It's plausible that this truss failed.

How?

Gordon.

If it wasn't plausible, why did the fire department pull everyone back? Why did the media expect the collapse? Why did a fireman say he saw buckled floors in the building during rescue operations? Where they all wrong or helping Bush?
yesitdid
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 26 2006, 01:19 AM)
QUOTE (guest1+Jan 26 2006, 01:03 AM)
WTC7 had an unusual structure near ground level consisting of three load transfer trusses...Before WTC7 collapsed globally, the penthouse on the east side sank.  This section was directly over one of the three load transfer trusses.  .

Where did you get this information?

Try NIST's WTC report on WTC 7 , IIRC it is referred to as "appendix L"

Details of #7's construction are well documented there.
yesitdid
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 24 2006, 06:16 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 24 2006, 05:08 AM)
I don't have the time to research what YOU have written wrt to BZ, but I suspect that if I did, I might well find that you have interpreted their eq. 1 as pointing to something near a real condition that existed in the towers during the real, physical collapse.

This is poorly written. If the word "near" is interpreted in the sense that a tiny spatial compression will lead to fracturing of the building, and thus even if you don't believe compressive force reached anywhere near 31 x [design load capability], they still "obviously" exceeded design load capability, and thus you are still obviously wrong, since you are still left with the absurdity that an even smaller spatial compression resulted in failure.

Thus, interpreting my sentence this way is OK.

However, my intended meaning was "near" in the sense of "near the truth". If you assume a Hooke's law force leads to failure in the columns, the absurdity of what you are saying is obvious, since the columns could not have failed with such a small compression. Thus, your method of analysis has no merit wrt the phenomenon you are trying to explain, even if it's perfectly fine for studying other phenomena in the same system, such as vibrations, and even if it's a useful second or third order correction for solutions that are valid near fracture.


I'm pretty sure that I know what JayUtah's logical fallacy is in thinking elastic dynamic analysis could have any serious explanatory power in the case of the tower's collapses, but let's see if you can figure it out. I need to get to sleep.

I assume, perhaps incorrectly that this is directed at me.

What about Hooke's Law do you contend shows that the columns could not have failed in a few milliseconds of having had 31 times the design load put on them?

Even spring steel can be made to fail by fracture if a high enough load is put on it too fast and those columns were much more brittle than spring steel.

I know you came up with the figures and then you went straught to the conclusion that this could not have failed the columns so quickly. I don't see the straight line reasoning for this though.
gordon
If it wasn't plausible,
Did I say it was plausible or not plausible, or did I ask for details of the collapse mechanism?
why did the fire department pull everyone back?
Because someone who knew it was about to collapse or be collapsed, told them.
Why did the media expect the collapse?
Because someone who knew it was about to collapse or be collapsed, told them.

The question arising from your argument is who told them and how did they know?
Your sources seem to be rather quiet as regards this information.
If they knew it was going to collapse before it did collapse, then they must have known something about the mechanism which was unfolding at that moment in time.
They evidently surmised that the mechanism would most likely lead to collapse.
Why then is it that they are now at a total loss when asked to explain the mechanism?
We are still awaiting an answer, any answer, from NIST more than four years later.
I would guess that guest does not have a plausible theory regarding the collapse.
Bold assertions that this bit or that bit may have failed, stated without benefit of any supporting details or theories, are meaningless.

Maybe Silverstein told them, just before he pulled it.
Gordon.
brian
No one answered the question - why did the inquiry not ask those that informed Mayor Giuliani (OME) that the towers were about to collapse, what they knew that others did not?

As has just been said by gordon - "they must have known something about the mechanism which was unfolding at that moment in time."

From Giuliani's words on the day, the information he received that they were about to collapse was spot on, he said publicly - "And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building"

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html

Update: The OEM Issued the Warning

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html

"It is plausible" that the inquiry did not ask those THAT KNEW collapse was imminent how they knew so they could spend $20 million and 4 years speculating then eventually asking an outside body to explain building 7.

It is perhaps plausible, even more plausible than the building 7 truss story, but not the MOST plausible now is it?
Sensable
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 26 2006, 07:24 PM)
If it wasn't plausible,    
Did I say it was plausible or not plausible, or did I ask for details of the collapse mechanism?
why did the fire department pull everyone back?  
Because someone who knew it was about to collapse or be collapsed, told them.
Why did the media expect the collapse?
Because someone who knew it was about to collapse or be collapsed, told them.

The question arising from your argument is who told them and how did they know?
Your sources seem to be rather quiet as regards this information. 
If they knew it was going to collapse before it did collapse, then they must have known something about the mechanism which was unfolding at that moment in time. 
They evidently surmised that the mechanism would most likely lead to collapse.
Why then is it that they are now at a total loss when asked to explain the mechanism? 
We are still awaiting an answer, any answer, from NIST more than four years later.
I would guess that guest does not have a plausible theory regarding the collapse.
Bold assertions that this bit or that bit may have failed, stated without benefit of any supporting details or theories, are meaningless.

Maybe Silverstein told them, just before he pulled it. 
Gordon.

Gordon, there is something which you can't find in mathimatics. That critical thinking skills. Please read this which I have posted over and over again. It is clear evidence they were talking about pulling the teams out because building 7 was about to come down due to damage as the media and everyone else at the time said...

"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 who called HIM

-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!

You are either not using your critical thinking skill set or are purposely suggesting something which isn't true. It makes no sense to talk like a demolition expert to someone who isn't a demolition expert. Especially if the person talking isn't himself a demolition expert.

Also RC makes the very relevant point that the fire department is run like a military organization. "Pull" back or out is also a military term. It logical fits much better the than "Pulling" the building down. That just doesn't fit the evidence.

If the NIST never find a good answer you still can't put your own hypothesis which doesn't have a shred of evidence suporting it. That's not very scientific or even honest. I rather NIST throw up their hands than invent some hypothesis which can't be tested. The tower hypothesis was tested in many different ways. They used observations with controlled experiments as any real scientist would. They didn't start from "It couldn't be a bomb" then work back from there. You can however rule OUT a bomb if you see the perimeter columns pull in the momet the collapse starts.
zoktoberfest
Gordon,

My educational background does not permit me to venture significantly into the modalities of scalability as it applies to structural modeling. Yet, I strongly believe, if we really desire deeper insight into the collapse mechanisms that played out during 9/11, we will need to go down that road, eventually. Or we can keep posting in forums like this until, one by one, we die of old age. While searching, I came across a structural engineering school in San Diego, Ca. http://www.structures.ucsd.edu/ When you virtually visit this facility, please do, doesn't your imagination go wild with possibility. This is where failure mechanisms come to live or die. At least that's my reaction. I am suggesting a parallel course to metamars. Appeal to a higher power, institutional speaking. One of several approaches, would be like this. The local community college refurbished the body of my older car, for the price of a tank of gas; because my neighbors kid, an auto body student, used it as his project. Find an esteemed graduating student at an institute like this, possibly through a professor, who wants to model aspects of the collapse of the WTCs as his/her dissertation project. Would the modeling support the official collapse mechanisms or not. I'm sure this endeavor would get around on the web and hopefully bring useful attention to the facility.

My rather delayed question to you, Gordon, is what value do you put in down-scaled, physical modeling. I know scalability, in this application, is a very abstract subject. I am not suggesting congruent models but behaviorally, equivalent ones. I apologize for my persistence in this matter. Sooner or later, I require a project to evolve from the theoretical to a more tangible phase. I'm mentally defective that way.
brian
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Nothing can be proven or disproven but Sensables "critical thinking skills" leave much to be desired.

Why use "it" when referring to the teams as Sensable suggests with his - "It means "PULL" the teams out!?"

Had Sensable used critical thinking he would have stuck to "it" referring to the building -ie draw back from.

In the normal scheme of things after such an event Silverstein might have been expected to make some comment to the wisdom of the decision to pull back or pull out if that was indeed the meaning. His - "and we watched the building collapse."- seems very understated given the lives that had been possibly saved. If the collapse was not considered imminent it would have at least merited a - and just as well we did - NO?

Nothing can be proven but it sure comes across as very suspect.
Sensable
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 26 2006, 10:39 PM)
Gordon,

My educational background does not permit me to venture significantly into the modalities of scalability as it applies to structural modeling. Yet, I strongly believe, if we really desire deeper insight into the collapse mechanisms that played out during 9/11, we will need to go down that road, eventually. Or we can keep posting in forums like this until, one by one, we die of old age. searching, I came across a structural engineering school in San Diego, Ca. http://www.structures.ucsd.edu/ When you virtually visit this facility, please do, doesn't your imagination go wild with possibility. This is where failure mechanisms come to live or die. At least that's my reaction. I am suggesting a parallel course to metamars. Appeal to a higher power, institutional speaking. One of several approaches, would be like this. The local community college refurbished the body of my older car, for the price of a tank of gas; because my neighbors kid, an auto body student, used it as his project. Find an esteemed graduating student, possibly through a professor, who wants to model aspects of the collapse of the WTCs as his/her dissertation project. Would the modeling support the official collapse mechanisms or not. I'm sure this endeavor would get around on the web and hopefully bring useful attention to the facility.

My very delayed question to you Gordon is, what value do you put in down-scaled physical modeling. I know scalability is a very abstract subject. I am not suggesting congruent models but behaviorally, equivalent ones. I apologize for my persistence in this matter. Sooner or later, I require a project to evolve from the theoretical to a more tangible phase. I'm mentally defective that way.

Why look for students? Why not look for professors?

Structural engineers are the exact people you want looking into this. I've been saying this from the start. If you can't get a paper which passes peer view from a structural / civil engineering journal no one will take you seriously.
Sensable
QUOTE (brian+Jan 26 2006, 10:44 PM)
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Nothing can be proven or disproven but Sensables "critical thinking skills" leave much to be desired.

Why use "it" when referring to the teams as Sensable suggests with his - "It means "PULL" the teams out!?"

Had Sensable used critical thinking he would have stuck to "it" referring to the building -ie draw back from.

In the normal scheme of things after such an event Silverstein might have been expected to make some comment to the wisdom of the decision to pull back or pull out if that was indeed the meaning. His - "and we watched the building collapse."- seems very understated given the lives that had been possibly saved. If the collapse was not considered imminent it would have at least merited a - and just as well we did - NO?

Nothing can be proven but it sure comes across as very suspect.

"THEY" is not "I" is it. Read your own quote before posting. Some reading comprehension courses wouldn't do you any harm.

"they made that decision to pull"

Now do you see it???

Does anyone have what was said by the interviewer just before Silverstein speaks? Obviously the interviewer isn't in the demolition busniess either. Obviouslly there is something from the interview we aren't seeing. blink.gif
cosmo
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 26 2006, 08:49 PM)
"It means "PULL" the teams out!
.



Did you ever stop to think that maybe Silverstien meant pull his pud?

QUOTE
"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 who called HIM


Maybe Silverstein and the fire commander had some kind of sick masturbatory tendencies. There could exist some strange, unknown dynamics in the relationship of these two men. It is very plausible that while WTC7 was collapsing, one or both of these men were feverishly pulling their puds.

Perhaps Silverstein was aroused by the realization that he was going to recieve a sizable insurance settlement. We just don't know at this point. It's difficult to speculate over such perversions.
Excuse Me
Sorry if I'm butting in.

Could 'it' have been 'the operation'? You know, the firefighting operation being conducted at WTC7 before the plug was pulled on 'it', the 'operation'?

Sensable
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 26 2006, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 26 2006, 08:49 PM)
"It means "PULL" the teams out!
.



Did you ever stop to think that maybe Silverstien meant pull his pud?

QUOTE
"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 who called HIM


Maybe Silverstein and the fire commander had some kind of sick masturbatory tendencies. There could exist some strange, unknown dynamics in the relationship of these two men. It is very plausible that while WTC7 was collapsing, one or both of these men were feverishly pulling their puds.


This actually makes more sense than a DEMOLITION... blink.gif

/Me wonders why cosmo is thinking of Silverstien's pud... ohmy.gif
Sensable
QUOTE (Excuse Me+Jan 26 2006, 11:07 PM)
Sorry if I'm butting in.

Could 'it' have been 'the operation'? You know, the firefighting operation being conducted at WTC7 before the plug was pulled on 'it', the 'operation'?

Yes, I said that in my post. This fits the evidence. wink.gif

Please inject as much logic and reason in this thread as possible. God knows the CTers need some...
Sensable
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 26 2006, 11:04 PM)
Perhaps Silverstein was aroused by the realization that he was going to recieve a sizable insurance settlement. We just don't know at this point. It's difficult to speculate over such perversions.

Yeah, because killing 3000 people with the help of the NYC fire department makes more sense than selling a profitable building... blink.gif MORON!
Excuse Me
Yes. Sorry. My fault. I posted that answer to brian post and missed your post, Sensable. Thanks for that. bye.
Sensable
So tell me, how did that conversation go cosmo? Did Bush call Silverstien and say "Yo, yo Silverstien, check it! I'm about to fly two planes into your buildings... You want me to hook you up with some explosives dogg? I can fix it so a piece of the tower falls on your building JUUUST RIGHT. We'll make a little smoke.. a little fire... then BANG! we pull it hommie! cool.gif
zoktoberfest
Frater,

Thank you for providing the 3-part, BBC documentary. One piece of history, however, that gets left out of historical retrospectives, frequently, is the "Iran-Iraq war". A near decade long conflict between our established, secular client state and our now insurgent, hostage taking, fundamentalist, mortal enemy. It was a wholesale, real time, WMD testing laboratory, disguised as a war. More notably, it was a giant, geopolitical chess board where the emerging neo-con tacticians could practice their theoretical strategic manipulation, on a grand scale. And now, at this very moment, those two nations dominate our foreign policy. Why is this event, for which WMD's were tailored for, supplied to and encouragements given for use of, not front and center in our geopolitical dialog? We ignore the primary and ponder the peripheral. It's no wonder that Americans are so politically myopic

The sins of the Father

are visited upon the Son
cosmo
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 26 2006, 11:45 PM)
Did Bush call Silverstien and say "Yo, yo Silverstien, check it! I'm about to fly two planes into your buildings... You want me to hook you up with some explosives dogg?...

I seriously doubt it. You are implying a level of articulation that Bush has shown he clearly does not possess. He is hardly capable of stringing together such coherent sentences.
Schneibster
QUOTE (gordon+)
The question arising from your argument is who told them and how did they know?
Your sources seem to be rather quiet as regards this information. 
Those of guest may or may not be; mine are not.

I have posted a link to statements by the fire commander in charge at 7 WTC that the building was surveyed using a transit and found to be significantly out of alignment, indicating major internal structural damage. Further statements are present that, while hearsay, are nevertheless relevant, regarding "creaking and groaning" of the building reported by firemen emerging from it. Taken in combination, this individual felt it incumbent upon him to give orders that all firemen in the building were to leave and no more were to enter for any reason; enforcing these orders apparently required great vehemence because the firemen present felt it was their job to enter the building. He made the statement that he expected the building to collapse because of the damage implied by creaking and groaning, and by the results of survey with professional equipment (a transit).

In addition, several photographs are available which show significant buckling of the southwest corner above the damage at the base of that corner. You will appreciate, gordon, where others might not, that naked-eye visible buckling of a building corner is a sign of severe internal damage to the building's structure.

As previously noted, no photographs of the south face after the fall of the North Tower exist that I have been able to find; my purported source did not come through, and I'm not sure why s/he made the claim in the first place. However, from another fire commander we have statements published in the same publication as the first one I mentioned above that there was a 20-story hole in the south face of the building, and this is mentioned in a context that differentiates it from the 10-story damaged southwest corner.

I had originally been convinced that 7 WTC had been demolished in order to destroy documents collected by the SEC in support of their investigation of Chase Manhattan taking money from the tech stock bubble that crashed in late 1999 and early 2000; if you'll recall, some seven trillion dollars were taken out of the market at that time, and it has long been my opinion that the bulk of this money was taken from the middle class in the US, who were invested in the stocks. However, presented with the above testimony, I was forced to conclude that no matter how attractive the motive seemed, the physical circumstances appeared to credibly indicate that the building had been damaged by the fall of the North Tower and eventually fell down due to a combination of that damage and further damage created by the fires that burned inside the building after the collapse of the North Tower. Further testimony exists that elevators had been ejected from their shafts inside 7 WTC as a result of this same damage, and that indicates that it was not merely tall, but went deeply into the building; this is apparent from examination of the building construction documents in the FEMA report (which is primarily notable for its lack of proper analysis, but useful for these documents and similar documents that show some details of the construction of the towers, as well as some photographs that are not otherwise generally available).

If you have trouble finding these references, please let me know and I'll give you links.

How's it going on looking my analysis over?
Sensable
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 27 2006, 12:11 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 26 2006, 11:45 PM)
Did Bush call Silverstien and say "Yo, yo Silverstien, check it! I'm about to fly two planes into your buildings... You want me to hook you up with some explosives dogg?...

I seriously doubt it. You are implying a level of articulation that Bush has shown he clearly does not possess. He is hardly capable of stringing together such coherent sentences.

Yet you give him credit for the biggest mass murder and coverup in US history. nothing ironic here... blink.gif
Sensable
User posted image

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7Struc...alysisPrint.pdf

This is not the final report and should be taken as such.
cosmo
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 12:45 AM)
Yet you give him credit for the biggest mass murder and coverup in US history. nothing ironic here... blink.gif

You must be confusing me with someone else. I don't believe Bush took part in anything that happened on 9/11. He was much too busy to participate, his attention being fully consumed in his efforts to grasp the concepts presented in My Pet Goat.

user posted image
gordon
How's it going on looking my analysis over?

Not bad. I'm looking at several postulations and attempting to categorise their similarities and the various factors affecting the differing accounts. I'm only dealing with 1 and 2, since their is little detail on 7 from official sources. It is unlikely that I will include 7 at this stage, but I am interested in any ideas which may arise from it.
I know that this means a delay in getting back to you and I've suddenly got busy at work as well, but I will reply when I can.
Quick summary of work so far indicates that the main difference between the different ideas for a collapse mechanism are that some say the floors disconnected from the columns leading to column failure, and some say that the floors stayed connected allowing a force to be transmitted through them to the columns, and this force contributed to a buckling collapse.
There are variations in detail before and after collapse initiation and it is these which are taking up my time in the analysis - yours being an example of these mechanisms.
My early thoughts on your ideas are that you are correct when you say that the truss rods would have exhibited the effects of the heat faster than other members (Sorry. I should have been clearer in acknowledging this in my previous post).
However there are escape routes for the truss rod strain, and the end connection is not quite how I understood it to be in that the upper chord also had escape routes.
One of my main points will be the one I made as a passing comment in one of my recent posts. If the full weight of the floor acted in shear on the bolts then they would have been able to withstand this force without failure. I need to look at the situation where some connections were broken by aircraft impact and how this load was taken up by the remaining connections. I am trying to actually quantify the variables so you can see that I have my work cut out


While we are on the subject of Silverstein, I would argue that when someone uses the word "it" they are referring again to a noun previously mentioned in that conversation. Did he previously mention the firefighting team? Did he previously mention the building? I'm pretty sure he hadn't previously mentioned his pud.
Also in order to pull the teams out of the building (7) and cease their firefighting activities they would actually have to be in the building and conducting firefighting activities. Both FEMA and NIST, I believe, stated that there were no such activities being conducted at that time. The timing of the evacuation and the timing of the events in the various statements are crucial in forming a timeline of events in order to analyse these. I doubt that we will be given this detail.
{Waterboard maybe? After all its not torture, is it, so we won't just hear what the victim thinks we want to hear.}

As regards the possibility of an analysis using a model. This would be reasonably valid and relevant from a mechanical point of view, but I'm not sure how you would model the heat input ensuring that it was representative of the events of the day, while also satisfying the differing viewpoints in the debate.

Gordon.

Sensable
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 27 2006, 01:20 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 12:45 AM)
Yet you give him credit for the biggest mass murder and coverup in US history. nothing ironic here... blink.gif

You must be confusing me with someone else. I don't believe Bush took part in anything that happened on 9/11. He was much too busy to participate, his attention being fully consumed in his efforts to grasp the concepts presented in My Pet Goat.

user posted image

At least we don't disagree on everything. That's a bit scary.. unsure.gif
zoktoberfest
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 26 2006, 02:55 PM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 26 2006, 10:39 PM)
Gordon,

My educational background does not permit me to venture significantly into the modalities of scalability as it applies to structural modeling. Yet, I strongly believe, if we really desire deeper insight into the collapse mechanisms that played out during 9/11, we will need to go down that road, eventually. Or we can keep posting in forums like this until, one by one, we die of old age. searching, I came across a structural engineering school in San Diego, Ca. http://www.structures.ucsd.edu/   When you virtually visit this facility, please do, doesn't your imagination go wild with possibility. This is where failure mechanisms come to live or die. At least that's my reaction. I am suggesting a parallel course to metamars. Appeal to a higher power, institutional speaking. One of several approaches, would be like this. The local community college refurbished the body of my older car, for the price of a tank of gas; because my neighbors kid, an auto body student, used it as his project. Find an esteemed graduating  student, possibly through a professor,  who wants to model aspects of the collapse of the WTCs as his/her dissertation project. Would the modeling support the official collapse mechanisms or not. I'm sure this endeavor would get around on the web and hopefully bring useful attention to the facility.

My very delayed question to you Gordon is, what value do you put in down-scaled physical modeling. I know scalability is a very abstract subject. I am not suggesting congruent models but behaviorally, equivalent ones. I apologize for my persistence in this matter. Sooner or later, I require a project to evolve from the theoretical to a more tangible phase. I'm mentally defective that way.

Why look for students? Why not look for professors?

Structural engineers are the exact people you want looking into this. I've been saying this from the start. If you can't get a paper which passes peer view from a structural / civil engineering journal no one will take you seriously.

an 24 2006, 11:50 AM

QUOTE (zoktoberfest @ Jan 18 2006, 02:12 AM)
Considering, the insurmountable cost and man power required to re-enact any aspect of the events of 911, firing an equivalent scrap engine into a section of an equivalently re-enforced wall, is very reasonable. Next would be an equivalent (scrap) aircraft, rocketed sledded, along the same vector path, into an equivalent barrier. Lets see, what would really have happened!

Quote guest
Talk, talk, talk..... This dude's got the right idea. Approach some bored rich guy with this proposition. Build the thing out in the desert somewhere on private land. Then bet the future's market that the gov't will find some technicality at the last minute to block the test. Sure would like to see what would happen but I'd be planning on what to do with the extra cash. What do you guys think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took noticed of your silence on this relatively straight forward, real world proposition. Too unencumbered for you. Who's payroll would the structural engineer be on?
Sensable
Gordon

Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1

1.Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the North wall from floors 93 to 98, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continuedto penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the North side of thecore. Core columns were also damaged toward the center of the core and, to a limited extent on the South side of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area to the South perimeter wall, primarily through the center of WTC 1 and at least over a third to a half of the core width.
•Aircraft impact severed a single exterior panel at the center ofthe South wall between floors 94 and 96.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls and to the core resultedin redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The hat truss resisted the downward movement of the North wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the North and South walls each carried about 7 percent less gravity loads after impact, and the East and West walls each carried about 7 percent more loads. The core carried about 1 percent more gravity loads after impact.

2.Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:

A.Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•The undamaged core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The shortening of the core columns (due to plasticity and creep)was resisted by the hat truss which unloaded the core over time and redistributed loads to perimeter walls.
•As a result of the thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact and prior to inward bowing of the South wall), the North and South walls each carried about10 percent more gravity loads, and the East and West walls each carried about 25 percentmore loads. The core carried about 20 percent less gravity loads after thermal weakening.
B.Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 95 to 99 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors and sagged. The floors sagged first and then contracted due to cooling on the North side; fires reached the South side later, the floors sagged, and the seat connections weakened.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the South wall columns.
•About 20 percent of the connections to the South perimeter wall on floors 97 and 98 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.
C.Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.

3.Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the South wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire South face.
•The South wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent East and West walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled South face) to the South (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the South wall along the adjacent East and West walls.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.


Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 2

1.Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the South wall from floors 78 to 84, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continuedto penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the Southeast corner of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area through the East half of the core up to the North and East perimeter walls. The floor truss seat connections over about 1/4to 1/2 of the East side of the core were severed on floors 80 and 81 and over about 1/3 of the East perimeter wall on floor 83.
•Aircraft impact severed a few columns near the East corner of the North wall between floors 80 and 82.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls resulted in redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The impact damage to the core columns resulted in redistribution of severed column loads mostly to other intact core columns and the East exterior wall. The hat truss resisted the downward movementof the South wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the core carried 6 percent less gravity loads after impact and the North face carried 10 percent less loads. The East face carried 24 percent more gravity load, while the West face and the South face carried 3 percent and 2 percent more gravity load, respectively.
•After impact, the core was leaning toward the East and South perimeter walls. The perimeter walls acted to restrain the core structure.



2.Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:

A.Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•Several of the undamaged core columns near the damaged and severed core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The core continued to tilt toward the East and South due to the combination of column shortening (due to plasticity, creep, and buckling) and the failure of column splices at the hat truss in the Southeast corner.
•As a result of thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact), theEast wall carried about 5 percent more gravity loads and the core carried about 2 percent less loads. The other three walls carried between 0 and 3 percent less loads.
B.Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 79 to 83 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors on the East side and sagged.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the East wall columns.
•About an additional 1/3 of the connections to the East perimeterwall on floor 83 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.
C.Thermal Weakening of the East Wall:
•East wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the East wall columns increased with time.

3.Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the East wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire East face.
•The East wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent North and South walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled East face) to the East (about 7ºto 8º) and South (about 3ºto 4º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the East wall along the adjacent North and South walls. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the East as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.

It wasn't just one or two things.
Sensable
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 27 2006, 02:34 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 26 2006, 02:55 PM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 26 2006, 10:39 PM)
Gordon,

My educational background does not permit me to venture significantly into the modalities of scalability as it applies to structural modeling. Yet, I strongly believe, if we really desire deeper insight into the collapse mechanisms that played out during 9/11, we will need to go down that road, eventually. Or we can keep posting in forums like this until, one by one, we die of old age. searching, I came across a structural engineering school in San Diego, Ca. http://www.structures.ucsd.edu/   When you virtually visit this facility, please do, doesn't your imagination go wild with possibility. This is where failure mechanisms come to live or die. At least that's my reaction. I am suggesting a parallel course to metamars. Appeal to a higher power, institutional speaking. One of several approaches, would be like this. The local community college refurbished the body of my older car, for the price of a tank of gas; because my neighbors kid, an auto body student, used it as his project. Find an esteemed graduating  student, possibly through a professor,  who wants to model aspects of the collapse of the WTCs as his/her dissertation project. Would the modeling support the official collapse mechanisms or not. I'm sure this endeavor would get around on the web and hopefully bring useful attention to the facility.

My very delayed question to you Gordon is, what value do you put in down-scaled physical modeling. I know scalability is a very abstract subject. I am not suggesting congruent models but behaviorally, equivalent ones. I apologize for my persistence in this matter. Sooner or later, I require a project to evolve from the theoretical to a more tangible phase. I'm mentally defective that way.

Why look for students? Why not look for professors?

Structural engineers are the exact people you want looking into this. I've been saying this from the start. If you can't get a paper which passes peer view from a structural / civil engineering journal no one will take you seriously.

an 24 2006, 11:50 AM

QUOTE (zoktoberfest @ Jan 18 2006, 02:12 AM)
Considering, the insurmountable cost and man power required to re-enact any aspect of the events of 911, firing an equivalent scrap engine into a section of an equivalently re-enforced wall, is very reasonable. Next would be an equivalent (scrap) aircraft, rocketed sledded, along the same vector path, into an equivalent barrier. Lets see, what would really have happened!

Quote guest
Talk, talk, talk..... This dude's got the right idea. Approach some bored rich guy with this proposition. Build the thing out in the desert somewhere on private land. Then bet the future's market that the gov't will find some technicality at the last minute to block the test. Sure would like to see what would happen but I'd be planning on what to do with the extra cash. What do you guys think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took noticed of your silence on this relatively straight forward, real world proposition. Too unencumbered for you. Who's payroll would the structural engineer be on?

Why do you have to buy one? If you're right someone will want to make a name for themselves as the guy who proved NIST wrong. Do you want a student because they are more gullible or easier to buy off? blink.gif

What "straight forward, real world proposition" are you talking about? You want to spend millions on an airliner on a rocket sled when we have all the eyewitnesses in the world saying it was a plane? When we have a fuselage being pulled from wreckage?

I don't want to spend a thin dime on this or UFOs or Bermuda triangles. I was pissed at spending 70 million on a dress with a cum stain on it and I'd be just as pissed spending a dime on this.

Especially when we have a real conspiracy with whistle blowers who already came out. Like the pre war intel.
Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster and monkey-names...'CommOn Sense', 'CommEn Sense', 'Common Sensable', and Now just plain 'Sensable'

Pull The TEAMS OUT...


Please inject as much logic and reason in this thread as possible. God knows the CTers need some...


AT LAST !!! The Schneibster and I agree on something.

Why do you intelligent people keep responding to this CT quack who keeps shouting the same message over, and over, and over again under different psuedonymns.

This spam post which he keeps posting was refuted long ago when he posted it under the Schneibster name.

Their WERE NO firefighting TEAMS engaged in any effort to put out the WTC7 fires, so there WERE NO TEAMS TO PULL OUT...

Sheesh... get over it!

Silversteins statement is a complete red herring anyway.

It wouldn't matter one whit WHAT Silverstein said... he had no authority to be directing firefighting teams.

As far as I am concerned, his statement was made simply to bolster his own ego and sense of self-importance in the actions of the day - (A badly worded statement which back-fired royally upon him).

It really doesn't matter whether Silverstein said the buildings were 'demo'd' ... or the basement fuel tanks caused the building to fall.

It doesn't change the fact that ANY unbiased person with EVEN ONE good eye can tell a Classic Textbook Implosion Demolition when you see one...

A Virtually PERFECT, 'drop'...'pull'...or whatever else you want to call it.

If WTC 7 had NOT been associated with the events of 9/11, the TEAM that dropped it would be 'heros' in the Guiness Book of World Records for performing such a near perfect drop of such a tall building in such close proximity to the neighboring buildings with barely a scratch to the peripheral properties. I doubt that any Commercial demolition company could claim such imaculate precision in such tight quarters.

Any CT'ers wish to bring up a comparable example from the files of Implosion World or CDI ?

Of course, NOW that it IS associated with 9/11... the CT's want to claim...

"No, no, no... we can NOT give credit where credit is due. These guys will have to remain 'anonymous'.

This precision drop (which very few demolition companies would be capable of performing with all their years of expertise and empirical know-how), must now just be relegated to 'random, assymmetrical, chaotic events' --- a physics anomaly such as never been witnessed in the engineering community in world history, must NOW just be dismissed as a 'freak occurance' ...(like the Murrah building anomaly)".

You intelligent people are wasting your time and energy going round in circles with the likes of Schneibster 'et al'.

Let 'em keep posting their nonsensical...

"PULL the (non-existent) TEAMS OUT" BS.

It is a waste a time and has already been refuted through the history of the investigation into this happen-chance, by FEMA reports and others who have recorded the firefighting effort against the insignificant (invisible - hiding) fires at WTC 7.

Leave the Muslim Allah CT'ers to wallow in their obfuscations and fantasies. Even when they get refuted under one name, they just change their name and post the same old refuted BS time after time in hopes that they might sway some unsuspecting newcomers to their delusions.

WTC 7 is the Achilles heel of the official boogie-woogie story, the last hope of saving the fairy tale... (the last stand - the 'Alamo'...Long live Don Quixote!!!)

Why is NIST after 4 years now trying to pass off the WTC 7 investigation to some sub-contractor? This super-genius list of paid ph'ders that Schneibster keeps posting can't figure it out?

Well, it's quite simple really... they will NEVER figure it out UNTIL they allow the Implosion Demolition theory, which answers virtually ALL the questions in about 3 seconds flat... (excepting the rivers of molten metal running beneath WTC 7 for months afterwards)... not 4 years (and counting).

In fact the refutation of NIST's hypothetical postulations regarding WTC 7 is contained in their own documents when they start pleading for some scapegoat to try to present a rational conclusion which FITS the fairy-tale.

Too Obvious, to anyone with more than 2 brain-cells.

Game Over.

Later.


Sensable
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 03:16 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster and monkey-names...'CommOn Sense', 'CommEn Sense', 'Common Sensable', and Now just plain 'Sensable'

Pull The TEAMS OUT...


Please inject as much logic and reason in this thread as possible. God knows the CTers need some...


AT LAST !!! The Schneibster and I agree on something.

Why do you intelligent people keep responding to this CT quack who keeps shouting the same message over, and over, and over again under different psuedonymns.

This spam post which he keeps posting was refuted long ago when he posted it under the Schneibster name.

Their WERE NO firefighting TEAMS engaged in any effort to put out the WTC7 fires, so there WERE NO TEAMS TO PULL OUT...

Sheesh... get over it!

Silversteins statement is a complete red herring anyway.

It wouldn't matter one whit WHAT Silverstein said... he had no authority to be directing firefighting teams.

As far as I am concerned, his statement was made simply to bolster his own ego and sense of self-importance in the actions of the day - (A badly worded statement which back-fired royally upon him).

It really doesn't matter whether Silverstein said the buildings were 'demo'd' ... or the basement fuel tanks caused the building to fall.

It doesn't change the fact that ANY unbiased person with EVEN ONE good eye can tell a Classic Textbook Implosion Demolition when you see one...

A Virtually PERFECT, 'drop'...'pull'...or whatever else you want to call it.

If WTC 7 had NOT been associated with the events of 9/11, the TEAM that dropped it would be 'heros' in the Guiness Book of World Records for performing such a near perfect drop of such a tall building in such close proximity to the neighboring buildings with barely a scratch to the peripheral properties. I doubt that any Commercial demolition company could claim such imaculate precision in such tight quarters.

Any CT'ers wish to bring up a comparable example from the files of Implosion World or CDI ?

Of course, NOW that it IS associated with 9/11... the CT's want to claim...

"No, no, no... we can NOT give credit where credit is due. These guys will have to remain 'anonymous'.

This precision drop (which very few demolition companies would be capable of performing with all their years of expertise and empirical know-how), must now just be relegated to 'random, assymmetrical, chaotic events' --- a physics anomaly such as never been witnessed in the engineering community in world history, must NOW just be dismissed as a 'freak occurance' ...(like the Murrah building anomaly)".

You intelligent people are wasting your time and energy going round in circles with the likes of Schneibster 'et al'.

Let 'em keep posting their nonsensical...

"PULL the (non-existent) TEAMS OUT" BS.

It is a waste a time and has already been refuted through the history of the investigation into this happen-chance, by FEMA reports and others who have recorded the firefighting effort against the insignificant (invisible - hiding) fires at WTC 7.

Leave the Muslim Allah CT'ers to wallow in their obfuscations and fantasies. Even when they get refuted under one name, they just change their name and post the same old refuted BS time after time in hopes that they might sway some unsuspecting newcomers to their delusions.

WTC 7 is the Achilles heel of the official boogie-woogie story, the last hope of saving the fairy tale... (the last stand - the 'Alamo'...Long live Don Quixote!!!)

Why is NIST after 4 years now trying to pass off the WTC 7 investigation to some sub-contractor? This super-genius list of paid ph'ders that Schneibster keeps posting can't figure it out?

Well, it's quite simple really... they will NEVER figure it out UNTIL they allow the Implosion Demolition theory, which answers virtually ALL the questions in about 3 seconds flat... (excepting the rivers of molten metal running beneath WTC 7 for months afterwards)... not 4 years (and counting).

In fact the refutation of NIST's hypothetical postulations regarding WTC 7 is contained in their own documents when they start pleading for some scapegoat to try to present a rational conclusion which FITS the fairy-tale.

Too Obvious, to anyone with more than 2 brain-cells.

Game Over.

Later.

"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


You sir are a piece of crap. These people would risk their life for your pathetic carcass and you sit there and call them lairs. You have NO credibility and NO shame. You have no character and no self esteem. I hope you find yourself needing their help. Maybe you'll wake up. mad.gif
Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Further statements are present that, while hearsay, are nevertheless relevant, regarding "creaking and groaning" of the building reported by firemen emerging from it.


But on the other hand, the 'opinions' of the firefighters regarding sounds related to explosions, mean something totally different and are irrelevant.

Do you see a consistent 'appeal to logic' here?


Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneibster
Especially when we have a real conspiracy with whistle blowers who already came out. Like the pre war intel.


Ahhhh, the old 'throw-the-monkey-wrench-into-the-wheel-obfuscation'...

Quote: "I'm really on YOUR SIDE... it's just that you are not 'smart enough' to see the 'REAL CONSPIRACY'"...

Yet, has anyone heard Schneibsters theory of 'where' 'the conspiracy' lies?...

How often does he promote or speak about Sibel Edmonds and the rest of the 'whistleblowers' real testimony... (and WHAT it all means and relates to?)... Apart from...

Just vague obfuscating comments to pretend he is 'on the side' of a REAL INDEPENDANT Investigation, while somehow trying to diffuse the need for one?

What a strange character?
Sensable
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneibster
Especially when we have a real conspiracy with whistle blowers who already came out. Like the pre war intel.


Ahhhh, the old 'throw-the-monkey-wrench-into-the-wheel-obfuscation'...

Quote: "I'm really on YOUR SIDE... it's just that you are not 'smart enough' to see the 'REAL CONSPIRACY'"...

Yet, has anyone heard Schneibsters theory of 'where' 'the conspiracy' lies?...

How often does he promote or speak about Sibel Edmonds and the rest of the 'whistleblowers' real testimony... (and WHAT it all means and relates to?)... Apart from...

Just vague obfuscating comments to pretend he is 'on the side' of a REAL INDEPENDANT Investigation, while somehow trying to diffuse the need for one?

What a strange character?

Here is just SOME of the evidence you obfuscate by shoving your obfuscating hypothesis in the way.

Thomas Packard acting FBI director: Summer before 9/11 Ashcroft told him he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats.

Larry Johnson former counter terrorism CIA: Rumsfeld set up special office to link Iraq and Al Qaeda Cherry picking Intel: Evidence is sent back saying “That’s garbage, that’s misleading, that misrepresents” then they would take the same brief to the vice president or one even worse.

Robert Baer: Cheney pushed CIA, Cheney said “Everybody knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, tell us what you know, What’s your best stuff?..”

Downing Street Memo says Bush wanted to remove Saddam though military action. “Evidence fixed around the policy”

Rice, Rove, Karen Hughes, Cheney have weekly closed door meetings on how to convince the american people.

John McLaughlin CIA deputy director: “We did not clear that particular [Niger] speech”… Tenets “Slam dunk” does not mean what the media thinks it means.

Michael Scheuer: Intel did not matter. We were going to war / Tenet researched 10 years worth of documents and found no connection to Al Qaeda. Tenet tells Bush / Administration yet administration continues to suggest connection.

Who is ‘Joe T’ and why was he the point man for analyzing nuclear weapon intel.

Gregory Thielmann State Dept intelligence: More and more people said intel on tubes were no good for a nuclear weapon. Official leak saying “Mushroom Cloud” misrepresents the intelligence community disagreement. Administration continues “No doubt” he has WMD. Tenet defends erroneous evidence while others in the CIA voice doubts. State department issues strong and lengthy decent. Niger uranium purchase “Highly Dubious”

Rand Baers National Security Council Resigns white house post and works against Bush “This is not peculiar of this white house. Pick a policy, go to the
Intelligence agencies, get your talking points”

CIA intel notes critical gaps in the evidence because of questionable reliability of many sources,

For the first time before a modern war Bush did not ask for National Intelligence Estimate. Congress demands it. NIE said Saddam not a threat.

White house Iraq group gives only evidence which supports policy while down playing decent.

Last minute dispute over Niger speech.

Tenet and Powell argue about intel.

Carl Ford Asst Sec of State, Intelligence: “This is all we got? And were making these firm judgments?

Powell not told about Curveball. Curveball was never debriefed by the CIA.

Col. Laurence Wilkerson: Evidence brought to the UN “It was anything but an intelligence document. It was a Chinese menu where you can pick and choose what you want”

A day before Powell’s UN speech a CIA skeptic had warned Curve Ball is a lair. A superior sends an E-mail reply saying “This wars going to happen regardless, the powers that be probably aren’t interested whither Curve ball knows what hes talking about.”

Powell’s speech riddled with misleading allegations. Not right out lies but worded in such a way as to mislead.

Scott Ritter ex UNSCUM weapon inspector: The evidence for war is not there. He goes on just about every TV station trying to stop the war.

Richard Clarke: Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11.

Gen Clark: People in the pentagon told him Bush was going to war no matter what.

Why don't you focus on this?
metamars
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 26 2006, 06:59 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 24 2006, 06:16 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 24 2006, 05:08 AM)
I don't have the time to research what YOU have written wrt to BZ, but I suspect that if I did, I might well find that you have interpreted their eq. 1 as pointing to something near a real condition that existed in the towers during the real, physical collapse.

This is poorly written. If the word "near" is interpreted in the sense that a tiny spatial compression will lead to fracturing of the building, and thus even if you don't believe compressive force reached anywhere near 31 x [design load capability], they still "obviously" exceeded design load capability, and thus you are still obviously wrong, since you are still left with the absurdity that an even smaller spatial compression resulted in failure.

Thus, interpreting my sentence this way is OK.

However, my intended meaning was "near" in the sense of "near the truth". If you assume a Hooke's law force leads to failure in the columns, the absurdity of what you are saying is obvious, since the columns could not have failed with such a small compression. Thus, your method of analysis has no merit wrt the phenomenon you are trying to explain, even if it's perfectly fine for studying other phenomena in the same system, such as vibrations, and even if it's a useful second or third order correction for solutions that are valid near fracture.


I'm pretty sure that I know what JayUtah's logical fallacy is in thinking elastic dynamic analysis could have any serious explanatory power in the case of the tower's collapses, but let's see if you can figure it out. I need to get to sleep.

I assume, perhaps incorrectly that this is directed at me.

What about Hooke's Law do you contend shows that the columns could not have failed in a few milliseconds of having had 31 times the design load put on them?

Even spring steel can be made to fail by fracture if a high enough load is put on it too fast and those columns were much more brittle than spring steel.

I know you came up with the figures and then you went straught to the conclusion that this could not have failed the columns so quickly. I don't see the straight line reasoning for this though.

It's not so much the time but the distance that strikes me as totally absurd. This was calculated assuming that Hooke's law held, which is another way of saying that the system was elastic.

Even if it doesn't strike you as totally absurd, you still have not overcome the quantitative results of Gordon (unless you can show an error. )

In the very simplified models contemplated by BZ and in this thread, we are either ignoring fracturing, or only considering "large scale" fracturing, and often not very clearly. We are not doing any calculations considering what happens when stresses cause pre-existing, "minor" fractures to turn into larger, potentially catastrophic ones.


I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand that a comprehensive consideration of fracturing might have very surprising results, and possibly allow for a global collapse (though, of course, even this would not explain all the "anomalous" features that I've mentioned previously). Since I'm a 'fracture-ignoramus', I couldn't legitimately claim to do this.

To eliminate this possibility definitively, I believe that we have to model on a computer - I'm doubtful that reasonable symbolic solutions exist, even as mediocre approximations, though I'm just guessing here.

I note, though, that this is not usually trotted out as an explanation of the collapses by FEMA Fairy Tale supporters. JayUtah is an exception, though a (mostly) better qualified one.

As for what I see as JayUtah's logical fallacy re BZ's use of elastic dynamic analysis, I will try to post it this weekend. But it boils down to a misleading comparison between two different systems, where the effects of the differences between them negate the reasonableness of conclusions that you can draw from them just by considering their similarities.

Ironically, he also criticized others for 'bad-analogy' type thinking, when he took them to task for comparing the collapse of the towers with the non-collapse of most or all other steel-framed buildings.


BTW, if you are in touch with JayUtah, would you consider asking him to write an essay/article on the physics/engineering of the collapse, for Fetzer's 911 scholar web site?

Also, Shneibster, would you consider writing an article from a physics point of view?

These should be coherent, well written pieces, where it's understood that some of the scholars will be scientists and engineers. Thus, you all should take extra care not to present arguments that wouldn't impress technical types. We want your strongest arguments, not your weakest .

I would expect, and hope, that your side of the debate would debunk some of the nonsense of my side, e.g., the "free fall" speed of collapse. Debunking fallacies such as this one should be easy, and serves a good purpose. What will not be so easy (IMO) is writing convincing articles showing the reasonableness of the NIST version of the collapses. (Of course, arguing for the FEMA version would be even more difficult.)
Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneibster
You sir are a piece of crap. These people would risk their life for your pathetic carcass and you sit there and call them lairs. You have NO credibility and NO shame. You have no character and no self esteem. I hope you find yourself needing their help. Maybe you'll wake up. 


Uh...ohhh... resorting to Mr Hyde again. Bring on the insults...

'piece of crap'...

'pathetic carcass'...

'you have no character and no self esteem'

I'm afraid your Mr. Hyde / CHUCKLES / et-al... insult character has no effect on me, Schneibster. Carry on.

There were NO firefighting teams to PULL OUT of WTC 7.

This is uncontestable fact.

The few remaining fire-fighters NOT sacrificed in the BIG SHOW, were sent to fight far more important fires than the insignificant fires in WTC 7.


cosmo
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneibster
Especially when we have a real conspiracy with whistle blowers who already came out. Like the pre war intel.


Ahhhh, the old 'throw-the-monkey-wrench-into-the-wheel-obfuscation'...

Quote: "I'm really on YOUR SIDE... it's just that you are not 'smart enough' to see the 'REAL CONSPIRACY'"...

Yet, has anyone heard Schneibsters theory of 'where' 'the conspiracy' lies?...

How often does he promote or speak about Sibel Edmonds and the rest of the 'whistleblowers' real testimony... (and WHAT it all means and relates to?)... Apart from...

Just vague obfuscating comments to pretend he is 'on the side' of a REAL INDEPENDANT Investigation, while somehow trying to diffuse the need for one?

What a strange character?

Come now Foxx, don't be so hard on the guy. He just wants us to help us understand the truth and forget all this unimportant nonsense. He is a concerned citizen, a seeker of truth, if you will.
Sensable
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 27 2006, 03:58 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneibster
Especially when we have a real conspiracy with whistle blowers who already came out. Like the pre war intel.


Ahhhh, the old 'throw-the-monkey-wrench-into-the-wheel-obfuscation'...

Quote: "I'm really on YOUR SIDE... it's just that you are not 'smart enough' to see the 'REAL CONSPIRACY'"...

Yet, has anyone heard Schneibsters theory of 'where' 'the conspiracy' lies?...

How often does he promote or speak about Sibel Edmonds and the rest of the 'whistleblowers' real testimony... (and WHAT it all means and relates to?)... Apart from...

Just vague obfuscating comments to pretend he is 'on the side' of a REAL INDEPENDANT Investigation, while somehow trying to diffuse the need for one?

What a strange character?

Come now Foxx, don't be so hard on the guy. He just wants us to help us understand the truth and forget all this unimportant nonsense. He is a concerned citizen, a seeker of truth, if you will.

I only want to help my fellow Patriots in there fight against our oppressors blink.gif
yesitdid
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 27 2006, 03:46 AM)
BTW, if you are in touch with JayUtah, would you consider asking him to write an essay/article on the physics/engineering of the collapse, for Fetzer's 911 scholar web site?


My only contact with JayUtah is the same as you are capable of. That is via posting on AH. I have never met the man or spoken or corresponded directly with him.
adoucette
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 26 2006, 11:50 PM)
[
There were NO firefighting teams to PULL OUT of WTC 7.

This is uncontestable fact.

The few remaining fire-fighters NOT sacrificed in the BIG SHOW, were sent to fight far more important fires than the insignificant fires in WTC 7.

Ah, so now the word you want to focus on is "OUT"?

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

IT IS QUITE CLEAR that they were talking about pulling the teams AWAY from WTC 7 and suspending any rescue operations. No one knew HOW it would fall, and being NEAR a 50 story building when it falls can be right hazardous to your health.

QUOTE
"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



Arthur
adoucette
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 26 2006, 11:29 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Further statements are present that, while hearsay, are nevertheless relevant, regarding "creaking and groaning" of the building reported by firemen emerging from it.


But on the other hand, the 'opinions' of the firefighters regarding sounds related to explosions, mean something totally different and are irrelevant.

Do you see a consistent 'appeal to logic' here?

No, not at all.

If you hear creaking and groaning sounds coming from a building that has major visible physical damage and has been on fire for hours, then one can probably make some reasonable assumptions as to what one is hearing.

BUT

If one hears "Sharp Reports" from a collapsing building ONE CANNOT DEDUCE that they are from HIGH EXPLOSIVES.

A lot of things in a collapsing building could create EXPLOSIVE sounds.

Foxx, I take it you were never very good at logic?

Arthur
Foxx
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneibster
Especially when we have a real conspiracy with whistle blowers who already came out. Like the pre war intel.


Ahhhh, the old 'throw-the-monkey-wrench-into-the-wheel-obfuscation'...

Quote: "I'm really on YOUR SIDE... it's just that you are not 'smart enough' to see the 'REAL CONSPIRACY'"...

Yet, has anyone heard Schneibsters theory of 'where' 'the conspiracy' lies?...

How often does he promote or speak about Sibel Edmonds and the rest of the 'whistleblowers' real testimony... (and WHAT it all means and relates to?)... Apart from...

Just vague obfuscating comments to pretend he is 'on the side' of a REAL INDEPENDANT Investigation, while somehow trying to diffuse the need for one?

What a strange character?

Here is just SOME of the evidence you obfuscate by shoving your obfuscating hypothesis in the way.

Thomas Packard acting FBI director: Summer before 9/11 Ashcroft told him he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats.

Larry Johnson former counter terrorism CIA: Rumsfeld set up special office to link Iraq and Al Qaeda Cherry picking Intel: Evidence is sent back saying “That’s garbage, that’s misleading, that misrepresents” then they would take the same brief to the vice president or one even worse.

Robert Baer: Cheney pushed CIA, Cheney said “Everybody knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, tell us what you know, What’s your best stuff?..”

Downing Street Memo says Bush wanted to remove Saddam though military action. “Evidence fixed around the policy”

Rice, Rove, Karen Hughes, Cheney have weekly closed door meetings on how to convince the american people.

John McLaughlin CIA deputy director: “We did not clear that particular [Niger] speech”… Tenets “Slam dunk” does not mean what the media thinks it means.

Michael Scheuer: Intel did not matter. We were going to war / Tenet researched 10 years worth of documents and found no connection to Al Qaeda. Tenet tells Bush / Administration yet administration continues to suggest connection.

Who is ‘Joe T’ and why was he the point man for analyzing nuclear weapon intel.

Gregory Thielmann State Dept intelligence: More and more people said intel on tubes were no good for a nuclear weapon. Official leak saying “Mushroom Cloud” misrepresents the intelligence community disagreement. Administration continues “No doubt” he has WMD. Tenet defends erroneous evidence while others in the CIA voice doubts. State department issues strong and lengthy decent. Niger uranium purchase “Highly Dubious”

Rand Baers National Security Council Resigns white house post and works against Bush “This is not peculiar of this white house. Pick a policy, go to the
Intelligence agencies, get your talking points”

CIA intel notes critical gaps in the evidence because of questionable reliability of many sources,

For the first time before a modern war Bush did not ask for National Intelligence Estimate. Congress demands it. NIE said Saddam not a threat.

White house Iraq group gives only evidence which supports policy while down playing decent.

Last minute dispute over Niger speech.

Tenet and Powell argue about intel.

Carl Ford Asst Sec of State, Intelligence: “This is all we got? And were making these firm judgments?

Powell not told about Curveball. Curveball was never debriefed by the CIA.

Col. Laurence Wilkerson: Evidence brought to the UN “It was anything but an intelligence document. It was a Chinese menu where you can pick and choose what you want”

A day before Powell’s UN speech a CIA skeptic had warned Curve Ball is a lair. A superior sends an E-mail reply saying “This wars going to happen regardless, the powers that be probably aren’t interested whither Curve ball knows what hes talking about.”

Powell’s speech riddled with misleading allegations. Not right out lies but worded in such a way as to mislead.

Scott Ritter ex UNSCUM weapon inspector: The evidence for war is not there. He goes on just about every TV station trying to stop the war.

Richard Clarke: Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11.

Gen Clark: People in the pentagon told him Bush was going to war no matter what.

Why don't you focus on this?

I am well aware of everything in your 'list' which ties in perfectly to what we are talking about on this thread (regarding suspicious circumstances related to 9/11).

However, the OUTCOMES of the 9/11 psyopts games, nor the political or other peripherals (Stand-down / Flight 93 / Flight 11 / Pentagon / Pre-warnings / etc, etc, etc...) are not properly addressed in THIS thread related to the obvious demolitions of the towers.

This shows the significant planning which went into this 'operation'.

9/11 was NOT planned in the few weeks preceding 9/11.

Even IF you believe the 'magical muslims' suspended the laws of physics on that day... you will have to agree that they had been planning such an 'operation' since the 'Bo-Jinka' days... How many years ago was that ?

In a game of chess... you would be foolish to NOT look 'one move ahead'.

As the US 'Intelligence Agencies' (and I use the term Intelligence LOOSELY)... were aware of Bojinka plans years ago... The obvious 'chess move' is to plan counter moves, so that when you call 'Check'... it is really 'Checkmate' because you have out-foxxed your opponent.

This whole plan would have worked perfectly in the '60s under the Northwoods Operation, but Kennedy nixed the 'plan'... pissing-off Far-More-Powerful people than the 'POTUS'.

History repeats itself... There is nothing 'NEW' under the sun.

By 2001 the situation was ripe for the taking. The neo-con 'wackos' had now come into a position of administrative power.

Look at the 'PLAN' supported by the military-industrial complex developed as far back as 40 years ago.

Do you think these 'spooks' were UNABLE in 40 years to refine the 'plan'?

You have to be old enough to reflect back on...

What would have happened 40 years ago if POTUS JFK HAD approved the Operations Northwoods 'plan'?

Thankfully, he had enough integrity to 'nix' the 'plan' at that time...

This time...

POTUS BUSH (Young'un) DID NOT have enough integrity and just went-with-the-flow of 'advisors'... I doubt (myself) that he had ANY Inkling of the actual plan/operation. IMHO, he was/is just a puppet...

Go 'here'...

Read story about goat with kiddies... Look innocent.

We will inform you WHAT to do and HOW to REACT when 'THE OPERATION' begins...

(in my opinion... that's WHY he looked like a deer 'caught in the headlights')...

He had no idea WHEN 'the plan' was to be implemented, and didn't really KNOW WHAT 'the plan' WAS... he just knew / 'was advised' ... that this plan would be put into play, and his role was just to 'play along' as things unfolded.

Co-incidentally many of whom, were involved with earlier dealings... Kennedy assassinations... Operation Mongoose... Pentagon Papers... Watergate... Iran-Contra...

are also names which surface with regard to 9/11 (in one way or another).

Go figure...

or go back to watching Springer... Oprah... CNN... Survivor... or...

Just go back to sleep, and avoid reality.


reasonwhy
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 26 2006, 08:41 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 27 2006, 03:46 AM)
BTW, if you are in touch with JayUtah, would you consider asking him to write an essay/article on the physics/engineering of the collapse, for Fetzer's 911 scholar web site?


My only contact with JayUtah is the same as you are capable of. That is via posting on AH. I have never met the man or spoken or corresponded directly with him.

You can also ask him at the bautforum . He seams to have the same information as YESITDID and Arthur.

QUOTE
I'd be interested in hearing how an FAE removed the C-level machine shop and its 50-ton hydraulic press, leaving only rubble.

(JayUtah)
Well, when you say a "50-ton press" that means it's able to exert 50 tons of force, not that it weighs 50 tons. The hydraulics are used to create that degree of force. In my shop at work we have a 5-ton press. Two people can easily carry it, and it's usually just bolted to one of the workbenches like you would do to a vise.

A 50-ton press is not a large machine. Here's an example:
user posted image
http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/w...Id=-1&rfno=475
The machine shop is characterized as "small", so if it did not allow the combustion gases to expand into empty space then their force would be expended upon the walls and contents.
__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base



http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=66...&postcount=1208
Sensable
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 27 2006, 05:01 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 26 2006, 11:29 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Further statements are present that, while hearsay, are nevertheless relevant, regarding "creaking and groaning" of the building reported by firemen emerging from it.


But on the other hand, the 'opinions' of the firefighters regarding sounds related to explosions, mean something totally different and are irrelevant.

Do you see a consistent 'appeal to logic' here?

No, not at all.

If you hear creaking and groaning sounds coming from a building that has major visible physical damage and has been on fire for hours, then one can probably make some reasonable assumptions as to what one is hearing.

BUT

If one hears "Sharp Reports" from a collapsing building ONE CANNOT DEDUCE that they are from HIGH EXPLOSIVES.

A lot of things in a collapsing building could create EXPLOSIVE sounds.

Foxx, I take it you were never very good at logic?

Arthur

How can concrete floors slamming into one another make noise? What about the vaccum or earth? Only a bomb can make an exposive sound in the vaccum of earth! tongue.gif
Sensable
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 05:04 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneibster
Especially when we have a real conspiracy with whistle blowers who already came out. Like the pre war intel.


Ahhhh, the old 'throw-the-monkey-wrench-into-the-wheel-obfuscation'...

Quote: "I'm really on YOUR SIDE... it's just that you are not 'smart enough' to see the 'REAL CONSPIRACY'"...

Yet, has anyone heard Schneibsters theory of 'where' 'the conspiracy' lies?...

How often does he promote or speak about Sibel Edmonds and the rest of the 'whistleblowers' real testimony... (and WHAT it all means and relates to?)... Apart from...

Just vague obfuscating comments to pretend he is 'on the side' of a REAL INDEPENDANT Investigation, while somehow trying to diffuse the need for one?

What a strange character?

Here is just SOME of the evidence you obfuscate by shoving your obfuscating hypothesis in the way.

Thomas Packard acting FBI director: Summer before 9/11 Ashcroft told him he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats.

Larry Johnson former counter terrorism CIA: Rumsfeld set up special office to link Iraq and Al Qaeda Cherry picking Intel: Evidence is sent back saying “That’s garbage, that’s misleading, that misrepresents” then they would take the same brief to the vice president or one even worse.

Robert Baer: Cheney pushed CIA, Cheney said “Everybody knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, tell us what you know, What’s your best stuff?..”

Downing Street Memo says Bush wanted to remove Saddam though military action. “Evidence fixed around the policy”

Rice, Rove, Karen Hughes, Cheney have weekly closed door meetings on how to convince the american people.

John McLaughlin CIA deputy director: “We did not clear that particular [Niger] speech”… Tenets “Slam dunk” does not mean what the media thinks it means.

Michael Scheuer: Intel did not matter. We were going to war / Tenet researched 10 years worth of documents and found no connection to Al Qaeda. Tenet tells Bush / Administration yet administration continues to suggest connection.

Who is ‘Joe T’ and why was he the point man for analyzing nuclear weapon intel.

Gregory Thielmann State Dept intelligence: More and more people said intel on tubes were no good for a nuclear weapon. Official leak saying “Mushroom Cloud” misrepresents the intelligence community disagreement. Administration continues “No doubt” he has WMD. Tenet defends erroneous evidence while others in the CIA voice doubts. State department issues strong and lengthy decent. Niger uranium purchase “Highly Dubious”

Rand Baers National Security Council Resigns white house post and works against Bush “This is not peculiar of this white house. Pick a policy, go to the
Intelligence agencies, get your talking points”

CIA intel notes critical gaps in the evidence because of questionable reliability of many sources,

For the first time before a modern war Bush did not ask for National Intelligence Estimate. Congress demands it. NIE said Saddam not a threat.

White house Iraq group gives only evidence which supports policy while down playing decent.

Last minute dispute over Niger speech.

Tenet and Powell argue about intel.

Carl Ford Asst Sec of State, Intelligence: “This is all we got? And were making these firm judgments?

Powell not told about Curveball. Curveball was never debriefed by the CIA.

Col. Laurence Wilkerson: Evidence brought to the UN “It was anything but an intelligence document. It was a Chinese menu where you can pick and choose what you want”

A day before Powell’s UN speech a CIA skeptic had warned Curve Ball is a lair. A superior sends an E-mail reply saying “This wars going to happen regardless, the powers that be probably aren’t interested whither Curve ball knows what hes talking about.”

Powell’s speech riddled with misleading allegations. Not right out lies but worded in such a way as to mislead.

Scott Ritter ex UNSCUM weapon inspector: The evidence for war is not there. He goes on just about every TV station trying to stop the war.

Richard Clarke: Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11.

Gen Clark: People in the pentagon told him Bush was going to war no matter what.

Why don't you focus on this?

I am well aware of everything in your 'list' which ties in perfectly to what we are talking about on this thread (regarding suspicious circumstances related to 9/11).

However, the OUTCOMES of the 9/11 psyopts games, nor the political or other peripherals (Stand-down / Flight 93 / Flight 11 / Pentagon / Pre-warnings / etc, etc, etc...) are not properly addressed in THIS thread related to the obvious demolitions of the towers.

This shows the significant planning which went into this 'operation'.

9/11 was NOT planned in the few weeks preceding 9/11.

Even IF you believe the 'magical muslims' suspended the laws of physics on that day... you will have to agree that they had been planning such an 'operation' since the 'Bo-Jinka' days... How many years ago was that ?

In a game of chess... you would be foolish to look 'one move ahead'.

As the US 'Intelligence Agencies' (and I use the term Intelligence LOOSELY)... were aware of Bojinka plans years ago... The obvious 'chess move' is to plan counter moves, so that when you call 'Check'... it is really 'Checkmate' because you have out-foxxed your opponent.

This whole plan would have worked perfectly in the '60s under the Northwoods Operation, but Kennedy nixed the 'plan'... pissing-off Far-More-Powerful people than the 'POTUS'.

History repeats itself... There is nothing 'NEW' under the sun.

By 2001 the situation was ripe for the taking. The neo-con 'wackos' had now come into a position of administrative power.

Look at the 'PLAN' supported by the military-industrial complex developed as far back as 40 years ago.

Do you think these 'spooks' were UNABLE in 40 years to refine the 'plan'?

You have to be old enough to reflect back on...

What would have happened 40 years ago if POTUS JFK HAD approved the Operations Northwoods 'plan'?

Thankfully, he had enough integrity to 'nix' the 'plan' at that time...

This time...

POTUS BUSH (Young'un) DID NOT have enough integrity and just went-with-the-flow of 'advisors'... I doubt (myself) that he had ANY Inkling of the actual plan/operation. IMHO, he was/is just a puppet...

Go 'here'...

Read story about goat with kiddies... Look innocent.

We will inform you WHAT to do and HOW to REACT when 'THE OPERATION' begins...

(in my opinion... that's WHY he looked like a deer 'caught in the headlights')...

He had no idea WHEN 'the plan' was to be implemented, and didn't really KNOW WHAT 'the plan' WAS... he just knew / 'was advised' ... that this plan would be put into play, and his role was just to 'play along' as things unfolded.

Co-incidentally many of whom, were involved with earlier dealings... Kennedy assassinations... Operation Mongoose... Pentagon Papers... Watergate... Iran-Contra...

are also names which surface with regard to 9/11 (in one way or another).

Go figure...

or go back to watching Springer... Oprah... CNN... Survivor... or...

Just go back to sleep, and avoid reality.

I would continue to reply to your pod people post but I have some rust to watch spread.
adoucette
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 01:04 AM)
I am well aware of everything in your 'list' which ties in perfectly to what we are talking about on this thread (regarding suspicious circumstances related to 9/11).

However, the OUTCOMES of the 9/11 psyopts games, nor the political or other peripherals (Stand-down / Flight 93 / Flight 11 / Pentagon / Pre-warnings / etc, etc, etc...) are not properly addressed in THIS thread related to the obvious demolitions of the towers.

This shows the significant planning which went into this 'operation'.

9/11 was NOT planned in the few weeks preceding 9/11.

Even IF you believe the 'magical muslims' suspended the laws of physics on that day... you will have to agree that they had been planning such an 'operation' since the 'Bo-Jinka' days... How many years ago was that ?

In a game of chess... you would be foolish to NOT look 'one move ahead'.

As the US 'Intelligence Agencies' (and I use the term Intelligence LOOSELY)... were aware of Bojinka plans years ago... The obvious 'chess move' is to plan counter moves, so that when you call 'Check'... it is really 'Checkmate' because you have out-foxxed your opponent.

This whole plan would have worked perfectly in the '60s under the Northwoods Operation, but Kennedy nixed the 'plan'... pissing-off Far-More-Powerful people than the 'POTUS'.

History repeats itself... There is nothing 'NEW' under the sun.

By 2001 the situation was ripe for the taking. The neo-con 'wackos' had now come into a position of administrative power.

Look at the 'PLAN' supported by the military-industrial complex developed as far back as 40 years ago.

Do you think these 'spooks' were UNABLE in 40 years to refine the 'plan'?

You have to be old enough to reflect back on...

What would have happened 40 years ago if POTUS JFK HAD approved the Operations Northwoods 'plan'?

Thankfully, he had enough integrity to 'nix' the 'plan' at that time...

This time...

POTUS BUSH (Young'un) DID NOT have enough integrity and just went-with-the-flow of 'advisors'... I doubt (myself) that he had ANY Inkling of the actual plan/operation. IMHO, he was/is just a puppet...

Go 'here'...

Read story about goat with kiddies... Look innocent.

We will inform you WHAT to do and HOW to REACT when 'THE OPERATION' begins...

(in my opinion... that's WHY he looked like a deer 'caught in the headlights')...

He had no idea WHEN 'the plan' was to be implemented, and didn't really KNOW WHAT 'the plan' WAS... he just knew / 'was advised' ... that this plan would be put into play, and his role was just to 'play along' as things unfolded.

Co-incidentally many of whom, were involved with earlier dealings... Kennedy assassinations... Operation Mongoose... Pentagon Papers... Watergate... Iran-Contra...

are also names which surface with regard to 9/11 (in one way or another).

Go figure...

or go back to watching Springer... Oprah... CNN... Survivor... or...

Just go back to sleep, and avoid reality.

And Foxx wants us to know that he is smarter than all of them and has FIGURED it ALL out.

Way to go Foxx.

Two gold stars.

And a new box of crayons.

Try not to write on the walls.

Arthur
Foxx
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 27 2006, 05:06 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 26 2006, 08:41 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 27 2006, 03:46 AM)
BTW, if you are in touch with JayUtah, would you consider asking him to write an essay/article on the physics/engineering of the collapse, for Fetzer's 911 scholar web site?


My only contact with JayUtah is the same as you are capable of. That is via posting on AH. I have never met the man or spoken or corresponded directly with him.

You can also ask him at the bautforum . He seams to have the same information as YESITDID and Arthur.

QUOTE
I'd be interested in hearing how an FAE removed the C-level machine shop and its 50-ton hydraulic press, leaving only rubble.

(JayUtah)
Well, when you say a "50-ton press" that means it's able to exert 50 tons of force, not that it weighs 50 tons. The hydraulics are used to create that degree of force. In my shop at work we have a 5-ton press. Two people can easily carry it, and it's usually just bolted to one of the workbenches like you would do to a vise.

A 50-ton press is not a large machine. Here's an example:
user posted image
http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/w...Id=-1&rfno=475
The machine shop is characterized as "small", so if it did not allow the combustion gases to expand into empty space then their force would be expended upon the walls and contents.
__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base



http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=66...&postcount=1208

reasonwhy...

Great Stuff !

Now the almighty 'pope' Jay Utah ('Engineer Extraordinaire') ...works in a machine shop???



Hmmm....

I've also seen him post that he is a 'quantum physics' engineer... and a theatrical lighting 'expert'. blink.gif

Seems he is a man of widely diverse talents and expertise... a 'hero' of the YID...

a legend (in his own mind)... with enough word-skills to fool even our own sophistry expert here --- the Yidster.

There are a LOT of 'jokesters' on the web.

Some may be just looking to boost their own ego (Like Schneibster--- quote: "I am here to TEACH")...

and others are paid shills.

Hard to determine the 'who's-who', really.

Although... Schneibsters an open textbook on psyche anomalies.

He Intends to 'TEACH US' !!! ???

BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah !!!!

The YID, (and JU) are other 'interesting' cases (from a psychological perspective).

Personally, I think it's plain to all that 'arthur adoucette' is either a dolt or paid to act like one.

'Reality Check' is Sooo Far from reality, that you really HAVE to be far from reality to even waste time reading his nonsense...

and of course, there is always that 'Foxx' character who likes nothing more than to post Lies biggrin.gif

Cheers

CIA-O (short for Central 'Intelligence' Agency - O) biggrin.gif
Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
Way to go Foxx.

Two gold stars.

And a new box of crayons.


Thanks, Arthur... Do I get a new coloring book to go with the crayons? biggrin.gif


Idiot... try to post something relevant.
adoucette
Foxx has nothing left but ad hominum attacks.

All the other BS having been proven for what it was.

Oh and Foxx, how many tons of thermite did you calculate it would take to burn per month?

Arthur
zoktoberfest
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 03:11 AM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 27 2006, 02:34 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 26 2006, 02:55 PM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 26 2006, 10:39 PM)
Gordon,

My educational background does not permit me to venture significantly into the modalities of scalability as it applies to structural modeling. Yet, I strongly believe, if we really desire deeper insight into the collapse mechanisms that played out during 9/11, we will need to go down that road, eventually. Or we can keep posting in forums like this until, one by one, we die of old age. searching, I came across a structural engineering school in San Diego, Ca. http://www.structures.ucsd.edu/   When you virtually visit this facility, please do, doesn't your imagination go wild with possibility. This is where failure mechanisms come to live or die. At least that's my reaction. I am suggesting a parallel course to metamars. Appeal to a higher power, institutional speaking. One of several approaches, would be like this. The local community college refurbished the body of my older car, for the price of a tank of gas; because my neighbors kid, an auto body student, used it as his project. Find an esteemed graduating  student, possibly through a professor,  who wants to model aspects of the collapse of the WTCs as his/her dissertation project. Would the modeling support the official collapse mechanisms or not. I'm sure this endeavor would get around on the web and hopefully bring useful attention to the facility.

My very delayed question to you Gordon is, what value do you put in down-scaled physical modeling. I know scalability is a very abstract subject. I am not suggesting congruent models but behaviorally, equivalent ones. I apologize for my persistence in this matter. Sooner or later, I require a project to evolve from the theoretical to a more tangible phase. I'm mentally defective that way.

Why look for students? Why not look for professors?

Structural engineers are the exact people you want looking into this. I've been saying this from the start. If you can't get a paper which passes peer view from a structural / civil engineering journal no one will take you seriously.

an 24 2006, 11:50 AM

QUOTE (zoktoberfest @ Jan 18 2006, 02:12 AM)
Considering, the insurmountable cost and man power required to re-enact any aspect of the events of 911, firing an equivalent scrap engine into a section of an equivalently re-enforced wall, is very reasonable. Next would be an equivalent (scrap) aircraft, rocketed sledded, along the same vector path, into an equivalent barrier. Lets see, what would really have happened!

Quote guest
Talk, talk, talk..... This dude's got the right idea. Approach some bored rich guy with this proposition. Build the thing out in the desert somewhere on private land. Then bet the future's market that the gov't will find some technicality at the last minute to block the test. Sure would like to see what would happen but I'd be planning on what to do with the extra cash. What do you guys think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took noticed of your silence on this relatively straight forward, real world proposition. Too unencumbered for you. Who's payroll would the structural engineer be on?

Why do you have to buy one? If you're right someone will want to make a name for themselves as the guy who proved NIST wrong. Do you want a student because they are more gullible or easier to buy off? blink.gif

What "straight forward, real world proposition" are you talking about? You want to spend millions on an airliner on a rocket sled when we have all the eyewitnesses in the world saying it was a plane? When we have a fuselage being pulled from wreckage?

I don't want to spend a thin dime on this or UFOs or Bermuda triangles. I was pissed at spending 70 million on a dress with a cum stain on it and I'd be just as pissed spending a dime on this.

Especially when we have a real conspiracy with whistle blowers who already came out. Like the pre war intel.


Who said anything about "buying" a structural engineer. I was referring to his day job, his employer. You know that place where you go for a paycheck, when your not trying to make a name for yourself proving NIST wrong.

I thought I explained in crisp, clear language the experience with my car refurbishment, as a project for a student in auto shop. I transposed that life experience into a potential situation, this time, a WTC project for a graduate student at the institute. You interposed the concept of bribery. This is a projection of your diseased mind, not mine.

Guest, suggested "approaching a rich guy". The proposition implies that the "guy" is paying for it. Once again, your projecting an incurred personnel expense. This proposition defines the concept of independent action, in spite of the administration. Reminding us of how much the feds wasted destroying Clinton's presidency, contributes to your line of thought, how?

Since when did they pull defined wreckage out the Pentagon?

"Especially when we have a real conspiracy with whistle blowers who already came out. Like the pre war intel." There are serious logical errors in the grammar of this sentence. Subject and object are ambiguous. I've noticed it before, many times, mostly in your responses. Dude, you can't stay on subject. Your emotions take over and you wander all over the reply, like a drunk driver. Yet, we are to believe that you are going define the failure protocols of the WTCs. When pigs fly or when we're under Marshal Law. Which ever comes first. I guess putting it that way, you've got a really good chance of pulling it off.
Mel
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneibster
Especially when we have a real conspiracy with whistle blowers who already came out. Like the pre war intel.


Ahhhh, the old 'throw-the-monkey-wrench-into-the-wheel-obfuscation'...

Quote: "I'm really on YOUR SIDE... it's just that you are not 'smart enough' to see the 'REAL CONSPIRACY'"...

Yet, has anyone heard Schneibsters theory of 'where' 'the conspiracy' lies?...

How often does he promote or speak about Sibel Edmonds and the rest of the 'whistleblowers' real testimony... (and WHAT it all means and relates to?)... Apart from...

Just vague obfuscating comments to pretend he is 'on the side' of a REAL INDEPENDANT Investigation, while somehow trying to diffuse the need for one?

What a strange character?

Here is just SOME of the evidence you obfuscate by shoving your obfuscating hypothesis in the way.

Thomas Packard acting FBI director: Summer before 9/11 Ashcroft told him he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats.

Larry Johnson former counter terrorism CIA: Rumsfeld set up special office to link Iraq and Al Qaeda Cherry picking Intel: Evidence is sent back saying “That’s garbage, that’s misleading, that misrepresents” then they would take the same brief to the vice president or one even worse.

Robert Baer: Cheney pushed CIA, Cheney said “Everybody knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, tell us what you know, What’s your best stuff?..”

Downing Street Memo says Bush wanted to remove Saddam though military action. “Evidence fixed around the policy”

Rice, Rove, Karen Hughes, Cheney have weekly closed door meetings on how to convince the american people.

John McLaughlin CIA deputy director: “We did not clear that particular [Niger] speech”… Tenets “Slam dunk” does not mean what the media thinks it means.

Michael Scheuer: Intel did not matter. We were going to war / Tenet researched 10 years worth of documents and found no connection to Al Qaeda. Tenet tells Bush / Administration yet administration continues to suggest connection.

Who is ‘Joe T’ and why was he the point man for analyzing nuclear weapon intel.

Gregory Thielmann State Dept intelligence: More and more people said intel on tubes were no good for a nuclear weapon. Official leak saying “Mushroom Cloud” misrepresents the intelligence community disagreement. Administration continues “No doubt” he has WMD. Tenet defends erroneous evidence while others in the CIA voice doubts. State department issues strong and lengthy decent. Niger uranium purchase “Highly Dubious”

Rand Baers National Security Council Resigns white house post and works against Bush “This is not peculiar of this white house. Pick a policy, go to the
Intelligence agencies, get your talking points”

CIA intel notes critical gaps in the evidence because of questionable reliability of many sources,

For the first time before a modern war Bush did not ask for National Intelligence Estimate. Congress demands it. NIE said Saddam not a threat.

White house Iraq group gives only evidence which supports policy while down playing decent.

Last minute dispute over Niger speech.

Tenet and Powell argue about intel.

Carl Ford Asst Sec of State, Intelligence: “This is all we got? And were making these firm judgments?

Powell not told about Curveball. Curveball was never debriefed by the CIA.

Col. Laurence Wilkerson: Evidence brought to the UN “It was anything but an intelligence document. It was a Chinese menu where you can pick and choose what you want”

A day before Powell’s UN speech a CIA skeptic had warned Curve Ball is a lair. A superior sends an E-mail reply saying “This wars going to happen regardless, the powers that be probably aren’t interested whither Curve ball knows what hes talking about.”

Powell’s speech riddled with misleading allegations. Not right out lies but worded in such a way as to mislead.

Scott Ritter ex UNSCUM weapon inspector: The evidence for war is not there. He goes on just about every TV station trying to stop the war.

Richard Clarke: Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11.

Gen Clark: People in the pentagon told him Bush was going to war no matter what.

Why don't you focus on this?

Why aren't you focusing on this?

Your focus seems to be refuting the 9/11 Whisteblowers. Unless, of course, you can direct me to some other web site where you spend countless hours discussing these issues with others.


billybats
Many messageboards give the mods/admins the ability to see IP addresses of the posters.

I'd like to know if there are indeed sock puppets here. Of course, being socks, they would know all about socks proxy servers ph34r.gif
Foxx
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 27 2006, 05:51 AM)
Foxx has nothing left but ad hominum attacks.

All the other BS having been proven for what it was.

Oh and Foxx, how many tons of thermite did you calculate it would take to burn per month?

Arthur

As I recall, Oh master of ad hominem attacks... That was YOUR JOB...

You proposed it would take... "Tons & Tons"

I had no problem in admitting that I could not quantify the amounts necessary. The last I recall the ball was in in your side of of the court. I did NOT say it would take 'Tons & Tons'... you DID!

Do you have any quantitative figures to back-up your allegations?

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I am NOT a thermite 'expert', and I would be quite willing to see what 'experts on thermite' you put forward to advance your hypotheseis that it would take 'Tons & Tons'

Thermite (or like incendiaries) FIT the above noted list of parameters.

I have yet to see metamars or ANY others come up with a better... ('more plausible'), explaination to fit that list of KNOWN parameters.

Are you implying that you CAN do SO ???

Then let's have it. tongue.gif


Foxx
QUOTE (billybats+Jan 27 2006, 06:11 AM)
Many messageboards give the mods/admins the ability to see IP addresses of the posters.

I'd like to know if there are indeed sock puppets here.  Of course, being socks, they would know all about socks proxy servers  ph34r.gif

Hi Billybats...

I can only give you the information which I am am privvy to.

I don't run a BB but I do have a website called Worlds Most Radical Boat Designs.

As operator of that website I have a 'stats check' ability... in other words, I can go to my stats resource page and it will give me the IP address of EVERY visitor who visits that page... (No 'Log-in' Required)... If you click-on to one of the pages in my website I can get information on where you are posting from... the type of computer you are using... the browser you are using...etc...etc...etc...

Every website you visit on the internet CAN IDENTIFY YOU.

Personally... I am not interested in all this information so the wealth of information available to me (from a 'webmasters' point of view) is irrelevant, however... I can see HOW a dubious 'webmaster' MIGHT be able to determine 'facts' about YOU that you might NOT want 'shared' or known.

There is no such thing as 'privacy' on the web.

IF I (or you) post a message on this forum (whether 'registered' or NOT)... 'adminstrators' of that forum CAN determine all sorts of information from that 'post'.

Unless the 'Schneib' is utilizing a 'bank of computers'... There is NO way 'administrators' here would be unable to tell If he is operating from ONE IP address...

In other words - IF someone was to do a serious 'check' on 'posters' here, an 'administrator/webmaster' could determine easily IF someone was posting under numerous 'names'.


Independent Observer
Dear Rawfooddan,

In case you are new to this forum, you should be advised that there are a number of chronic liars here, of which Mr. Sensable (the spelling tells it all) is merely one.

Ask Mr. Sensable to provide the photographic evidence that the core was still standing after the building collapsed and we'll all have a good laugh!

(:

Schneibster
QUOTE (gordon+)
I know that this means a delay in getting back to you and I've suddenly got busy at work as well, but I will reply when I can.
Take your time, you're doin fine. I've been at it a coupla years.

QUOTE (gordon+)
My early thoughts on your ideas are that you are correct when you say that the truss rods would have exhibited the effects of the heat faster than other members (Sorry.  I should have been clearer in acknowledging this in my previous post).
Thanks, I'll be interested to see how your analysis comes out.

QUOTE (gordon+)
If the full weight of the floor acted in shear on the bolts then they would have been able to withstand this force without failure.
I've been thinking about that, but I didn't want to distract you. I have a suspicion you might not have considered all the factors involved, and it sounds like you're making a start on that:
QUOTE (gordon+)
I need to look at the situation where some connections were broken by aircraft impact and how this load was taken up by the remaining connections.  I am trying to actually quantify the variables so you can see that I have my work cut out
You sure as heck do. Don't forget the heat of the fire, and don't forget that it apparently burned across the open space until it reached the perimeter wall. Just a quick preview so you don't feel like I ambushed you.

QUOTE (gordon+)
While we are on the subject of Silverstein,
I have a great deal of trouble imagining someone smart enough to take care of the liabilities by having the building demolished, yet stupid enough to say so in front of the TV cameras.

QUOTE (gordon+)
Both FEMA and NIST, I believe, stated that there were no such activities being conducted at that time.
At the time of the collapse? That would be correct according to the evidence I presented above- the fireman said (IIRC- if you want to argue about it, let's check the link and see precisely) they got everyone out about 2PM, and the building didn't fall until like 5PM.

QUOTE (gordon+)
As regards the possibility of an analysis using a model.  This would be reasonably valid and relevant from a mechanical point of view, but I'm not sure how you would model the heat input ensuring that it was representative of the events of the day, while also satisfying the differing viewpoints in the debate.
Maybe we can either vary the model, or vary the inputs, to see what's plausible and what's not.

Don't feel pushed to respond- take your time in the analysis, I'm just throwin stuff out there for you to chew on a bit.
Schneibster
/me is no longer responding to Faux' lies.
frater plecticus
QUOTE
/me is no longer responding to Faux' lies.


Is that a promise or a threat ?
brian
“Richard J. Spanard, Beta Tau '93 (Slippery Rock University) is a U. S. Army captain and commander of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal company based in northern New Jersey. On the morning of September 11, he was enjoying breakfast at a deli 50 feet from the World Trade Center twin towers when the first plane hit. General hysteria inundated the deli. Spanard decided that he and the three soldiers with him should move to number 7 World Trade Center, where they had a scheduled meeting.”

He heads the 754th ORDNANCE COMPANY

http://www.monmouth.army.mil/754ord/index.htm



Mission Statement

PROVIDE ROUTINE EMERGENCY IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE SUPPORT, UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE SUPPORT, NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL RESPONSE TEAMS, AND VERY IMPORTANT PERSON SUPPORT ON A 24HRS-A-DAY/ 7 DAYS-A-WEEK BASIS TO MILITARY, CIVILIAN, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES THROUGHOUT NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, RHODE ISLAND, CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, MAINE, AND PENNSYLVANIA.
adoucette
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 02:22 AM)
As I recall, Oh master of ad hominem attacks... That was YOUR JOB...

You proposed it would take... "Tons & Tons"

I had no problem in admitting that I could not quantify the amounts necessary. The last I recall the ball was in in your side of of the court. I did NOT say it would take 'Tons & Tons'... you DID!

Do you have any quantitative figures to back-up your allegations?

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I am NOT a thermite 'expert', and I would be quite willing to see what 'experts on thermite' you put forward to advance your hypotheseis that it would take 'Tons & Tons'

Thermite (or like incendiaries) FIT the above noted list of parameters.

I have yet to see metamars or ANY others come up with a better... ('more plausible'), explaination to fit that list of KNOWN parameters.

Are you implying that you CAN do SO ???

Then let's have it. tongue.gif

laugh.gif

This is HILARIOUS.

Foxx comes up with this:


...ACCORDING TO THE LIST OF RELEVANT FACTORS THAT I EARLIER PROVIDED...


QUOTE

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

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

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

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

e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation

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

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

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



And thus concludes:


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

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

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

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

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

e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation

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

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

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



And thus concludes:


There is absolutely NO gravity-driven collapse theory which can account for all these factors... therefore, IT can NOT be TRUTH. Simple as that.


So when I challenge him that it would take tons and tons of thermite to burn for weeks, it suddenly becomes MY responsibility to prove the BASIC PARAMETERS that support his assertion that it was thermite burning for weeks are FALSE.

No Way. YOU MAKE THE ASSERTION, YOU PROVE IT.

You claim it was THERMITE, I say no way, I've seen thermite burn and it burns very fast (in fact there is a video within this thread which gives you an idea of how fast it burns). Thus I say it would take tons and tons to burn for weeks.
To which Foxx says, PROVE IT.

laugh.gif laugh.gif

Gotta luv his infantile approach to debate though.

Arthur
Sensable
QUOTE (Independent Observer+Jan 27 2006, 07:17 AM)
Dear Rawfooddan,

In case you are new to this forum, you should be advised that there are a number of chronic liars here, of which Mr. Sensable (the spelling tells it all) is merely one.

Ask Mr. Sensable to provide the photographic evidence that the core was still standing after the building collapsed and we'll all have a good laugh!

(:

A sock puppet who's only contribution is character assassination... That alone should be an indication of his defeat.

I have posted it numerous times. But I want these clowns to 'insert foot deeeper in mouth' before I repost it. wink.gif
Sensable
QUOTE
Guest, suggested "approaching a rich guy".


My reply wasn't directed at this absurd idea. I dont care what people do with their private money. It was directed at this...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Guest, suggested "approaching a rich guy".


My reply wasn't directed at this absurd idea. I dont care what people do with their private money. It was directed at this...

Find an esteemed graduating  student, possibly through a professor,  who wants to model aspects of the collapse of the WTCs as his/her dissertation project.


I said

QUOTE
Why look for students? Why not look for professors?


to which you said

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Why look for students? Why not look for professors?


to which you said

Who's payroll would the structural engineer be on?


Then I said

QUOTE
Why do you have to buy one? If you're right someone will want to make a name for themselves as the guy who proved NIST wrong. Do you want a student because they are more gullible or easier to buy off? blink.gif


For all your grammatical prowess you seem to have been stumped on the obvious. Why a student. You still haven't given a good enough reason. If you're right professors would be falling all over themselves to help with the images of Nobel prize dancing in their heads.

I'm here so your lies don't go unanswered. And YES I work to stop the spread of this neocon disease but I don't do it by writing on stupid forums. (This is just poison control. Someone has to rebut this nonsense or it makes my real work harder) I do it by working phones and other tried and true methods.

I also don't do it by becoming Bush. I don't misrepresent facts to further a political agenda. Ironically you have chosen to help Rove distract from true crimes to these obviously planted distractions.

Nice to know we have a grammar cop..

user posted image

I feel safer already... unsure.gif

Your reply doesn't change the facts. Even if my grammar is lacking. wink.gif "Bush blew up the WTC because Sensable's posts are grammatically incorrect" wont fly.
Sensable
QUOTE (Mel+Jan 27 2006, 06:01 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 27 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneibster
Especially when we have a real conspiracy with whistle blowers who already came out. Like the pre war intel.


Ahhhh, the old 'throw-the-monkey-wrench-into-the-wheel-obfuscation'...

Quote: "I'm really on YOUR SIDE... it's just that you are not 'smart enough' to see the 'REAL CONSPIRACY'"...

Yet, has anyone heard Schneibsters theory of 'where' 'the conspiracy' lies?...

How often does he promote or speak about Sibel Edmonds and the rest of the 'whistleblowers' real testimony... (and WHAT it all means and relates to?)... Apart from...

Just vague obfuscating comments to pretend he is 'on the side' of a REAL INDEPENDANT Investigation, while somehow trying to diffuse the need for one?

What a strange character?

Here is just SOME of the evidence you obfuscate by shoving your obfuscating hypothesis in the way.

Thomas Packard acting FBI director: Summer before 9/11 Ashcroft told him he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats.

Larry Johnson former counter terrorism CIA: Rumsfeld set up special office to link Iraq and Al Qaeda Cherry picking Intel: Evidence is sent back saying “That’s garbage, that’s misleading, that misrepresents” then they would take the same brief to the vice president or one even worse.

Robert Baer: Cheney pushed CIA, Cheney said “Everybody knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, tell us what you know, What’s your best stuff?..”

Downing Street Memo says Bush wanted to remove Saddam though military action. “Evidence fixed around the policy”

Rice, Rove, Karen Hughes, Cheney have weekly closed door meetings on how to convince the american people.

John McLaughlin CIA deputy director: “We did not clear that particular [Niger] speech”… Tenets “Slam dunk” does not mean what the media thinks it means.

Michael Scheuer: Intel did not matter. We were going to war / Tenet researched 10 years worth of documents and found no connection to Al Qaeda. Tenet tells Bush / Administration yet administration continues to suggest connection.

Who is ‘Joe T’ and why was he the point man for analyzing nuclear weapon intel.

Gregory Thielmann State Dept intelligence: More and more people said intel on tubes were no good for a nuclear weapon. Official leak saying “Mushroom Cloud” misrepresents the intelligence community disagreement. Administration continues “No doubt” he has WMD. Tenet defends erroneous evidence while others in the CIA voice doubts. State department issues strong and lengthy decent. Niger uranium purchase “Highly Dubious”

Rand Baers National Security Council Resigns white house post and works against Bush “This is not peculiar of this white house. Pick a policy, go to the
Intelligence agencies, get your talking points”

CIA intel notes critical gaps in the evidence because of questionable reliability of many sources,

For the first time before a modern war Bush did not ask for National Intelligence Estimate. Congress demands it. NIE said Saddam not a threat.

White house Iraq group gives only evidence which supports policy while down playing decent.

Last minute dispute over Niger speech.

Tenet and Powell argue about intel.

Carl Ford Asst Sec of State, Intelligence: “This is all we got? And were making these firm judgments?

Powell not told about Curveball. Curveball was never debriefed by the CIA.

Col. Laurence Wilkerson: Evidence brought to the UN “It was anything but an intelligence document. It was a Chinese menu where you can pick and choose what you want”

A day before Powell’s UN speech a CIA skeptic had warned Curve Ball is a lair. A superior sends an E-mail reply saying “This wars going to happen regardless, the powers that be probably aren’t interested whither Curve ball knows what hes talking about.”

Powell’s speech riddled with misleading allegations. Not right out lies but worded in such a way as to mislead.

Scott Ritter ex UNSCUM weapon inspector: The evidence for war is not there. He goes on just about every TV station trying to stop the war.

Richard Clarke: Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11.

Gen Clark: People in the pentagon told him Bush was going to war no matter what.

Why don't you focus on this?

Why aren't you focusing on this?

Your focus seems to be refuting the 9/11 Whisteblowers. Unless, of course, you can direct me to some other web site where you spend countless hours discussing these issues with others.

I asked the question first, why are YOU focusing on this when there is so much evidence Bush lied us into war?
Sensable
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 27 2006, 08:27 AM)
At the time of the collapse? That would be correct according to the evidence I presented above- the fireman said (IIRC- if you want to argue about it, let's check the link and see precisely) they got everyone out about 2PM, and the building didn't fall until like 5PM.

In the interest of working off of the best possible evidence, may I point out some of the firemans quotes put the decision to pull the teams out at 3:00 to 4:00.

QUOTE
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.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
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.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt


...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


This makes it unlikey everyone was OUT by 2:00.
adoucette
Foxx and Thermite.

Since Foxx will continue to say I must prove his assertions false (of course I saw no such proof that the amazing basement bellows wouldn't work) I figured, ok, why not, even though it is his assertion to support, this should be pretty easy to demonstrate that it is false.

Turns out it is:

Already on this thread is a link to a site which has looked into thermite in a pretty detailed manner.

http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm

They conclude, based on energy released, that it would take 762 kg of thermite to cut one of the lower box columns.

Since the towers fell in as little as 72 minutes, this would imply that the 762 kg had to burn within that time frame. It the Thermite DOESN'T burn that fast then it has no use in the towers in the first place.

So, assuming that it does:

This gives a minimum burn rate (again, assuming they used the MINIMUM amount of thermite needed to do the job) of ~24 lbs of thermite per minute.

That burn rate works out to ~120 TONS per week.

Since there were MULTIPLE hot spots (assume at least 1 per tower) than this works out to ~240 tons per week.

Which means for two thermite reactions to be burning two weeks after the fall would require ~ 1 MILLION pounds of starting material.

That sounds like "tons and tons" to me.


Arthur

frater plecticus
Seriously, Arthur, rather than telling everyone how wrong they are , why don't you prove you are right....
adoucette
Don't have to, I'm not postulating ANYTHING that isn't in the NIST report.

Its EASY to show BS like thermite burning for weeks makes no sense though.

This is SHILL 101 stuff.

Arthur
Foxx
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 27 2006, 03:22 PM)
Foxx and Thermite.

Since Foxx will continue to say I must prove his assertions false (of course I saw no such proof that the amazing basement bellows wouldn't work) I figured, ok, why not, even though it is his assertion to support, this should be pretty easy to demonstrate that it is false.

Turns out it is:

Already on this thread is a link to a site which has looked into thermite in a pretty detailed manner.

http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm

They conclude, based on energy released, that it would take 762 kg of thermite to cut one of the lower box columns.

Since the towers fell in as little as 72 minutes, this would imply that the 762 kg had to burn within that time frame. It the Thermite DOESN'T burn that fast then it has no use in the towers in the first place.

So, assuming that it does:

This gives a minimum burn rate (again, assuming they used the MINIMUM amount of thermite needed to do the job) of ~24 lbs of thermite per minute.

That burn rate works out to ~120 TONS per week.

Since there were MULTIPLE hot spots (assume at least 1 per tower) than this works out to ~240 tons per week.

Which means for two thermite reactions to be burning two weeks after the fall would require ~ 1 MILLION pounds of starting material.

That sounds like "tons and tons" to me.


Arthur

OK 'Arthur'. Thanks ... some working numbers to begin with.

Now, please demonstrate why it would be scientifically impossible for devious 'spooks' (intent on bringing the towers down), to move that amount of incendiary material into the basement areas.

Please note that I am NOT asking for YOUR opinion on the 'likelihood' that 'they' would do such a thing...

I am asking for you to present a 'scientific or physics-related' reason that such importation WOULD be IMPOSSIBLE.

As the thermite 'theory' is still just a 'theory' in order to test the theory we first need to see scientific reasons which make the theory untenable, and your 'pope-ish' proclamations that it is 'unlikely' (according to your opinion) are NOT scientific facts which can be used to discredit the theory...

especially when (as far as anyone has been able to determine), thermite (or some similar incendiary with like properties has the ability to scientifically fulfil ALL the requirements of the anomalous list.

In order to 'discredit' the 'thermite theory' ... which is not MY theory --- (i.e. I did not come up with it, but I do subscribe to it because so far, it is the ONLY theory that fits ALL the parameters scientifically)...

You will NEED to scientifically show the IMPOSSIBILITY of bringing these 'tons & tons' of 'thermite' into the lower levels of the WTC towers.

So far, NO one has done so... all I'VE SEEN as an attempt to discredit this theory is a bunch of handwaving that... "I just don't believe that such an importation is likely" --- and that lends NO scientific discrediting evidence to the debate.

Thanks for doing the research to provide some quantification of amounts 'plausibly required'. Perhaps you could have more productively spent that time doing research to find a 'gravity-driven' explanation (scientific theory) for these 'rivers of molten metal'.

I'm sorry, but your Amazing Underground Bellows theory is as looney as the Supersonic Jet-Fuel theory, and neither has ANY scientific basis that I have seen (as of yet) biggrin.gif.


frater plecticus
QUOTE
Don't have to, I'm not postulating ANYTHING that isn't in the NIST report.

Is the NIST report written in stone, then ?

adoucette
laugh.gif

Ah, so now I have to prove a NEGATIVE.

You postulate that it is thermite (and yes I know it isn't YOUR theory, you just spout off about it every other day or so)

I say it will take tons and tons.

You say prove it.

I prove it.

You say prove they couldn't have put 240 tons of material into the towers and left it there.

I say, enough of this, "I have to prove your silly claims are wrong".

How about a little proof that your silly claims are right?

Got any?

Arthur

adoucette
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 27 2006, 12:33 PM)
QUOTE
Don't have to, I'm not postulating ANYTHING that isn't in the NIST report.

Is the NIST report written in stone, then ?

Nah, its a PDF.

But that's as good as stone until someone REFUTES it with adequate proof.

Ain't happened yet and the FINAL report has been available for review for over 3 months.

Arthur
brian
Arthur, tell us the official tale again.

Or the Arthurian Legend version if you like.

Then show us the proof.
Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneibster
I asked the question first, why are YOU focusing on this when there is so much evidence Bush lied us into war?


We ALL KNOW that the BUSH adminstration 'lied us into war' amongst numerous other lies revolving around the events and outcomes of 9/11. That really has no relevance regarding this thread. If you wish to discuss those numerous political lies, I suggest starting a thread to deal with those issues.

The ONLY relevance that has to the questions being examined in this thread is that it adds circumstantial evidence that if 'they' lied about such a monumental issue, it is more than likely that 'they' are lying about the initiating events (psyopts) which allowed them to make the lying arguements to create the war in the first place.

Northwoods 2001... anyone?


Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by Arthur the legendarian
How about a little proof that your silly claims are right?

Got any?


Already DONE SO, in the list of parameters regarding underground fires and rivers of molten metal. There is 'a little proof' for any intelligent being.


Go home arthur, your 'work' is obviously finished here, and you have nothing more to add except handwaving biggrin.gif



frater plecticus
ditto
Foxx
QUOTE
Another Legend by the Great Proclamator regarding the NIST report
But that's as good as stone until someone REFUTES it with adequate proof.


Already been done by Hoffman...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

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

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/S...ones.html#paper

Fetzer... and numerous others.

Add to that the FACT that NIST has been caught in the red-handed LIE that "NO Steel was recovered from WTC 7"... and we have a case of a report not worth the paper it is written on.

Believe their nonsensical report, if you like... so far you still have 'freedom of choice' in your 'beliefs'... but it doesn't quite convince those of us who have studied these questions in depth.


adoucette
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 27 2006, 01:06 PM)
QUOTE
Another Legend by the Great Proclamator regarding the NIST report
But that's as good as stone until someone REFUTES it with adequate proof.


Already been done by Hoffman...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

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

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/S...ones.html#paper

Fetzer... and numerous others.


This is your PROOF that the NIST report is not true?

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Hoffman didn't outlast this thread and Jones can't get any respect at his own institution or get published in an ENGINEERING journal.

Arthur
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.