Well, gee, it looks like it DID take a LOT longer- in fact, there was time for a building THREE AND A HALF TIMES TALLER to fall by free fall.
Did you have a point there, somewhere? I'm sorry, I just can't see it- just more scorched earth. Do you feel a sudden sinking sensation? Are you seeing smoke out the canopy? Could that possibly be the ground you see coming up so fast in front of you? Are the wheels coming off? Looks that way to me. I think you're crashing and burning. I suggest bailing out immediately.
Moving right along here, I don't really want to spend any more time on this than I absolutely have to, I've already spent over fifteen minutes.
3) If the beams/trusses had just softened, there would not have been a large pyroclastic flow of dust at the time of collapse. Creating a cloud of dust like this requires a great deal of energy. The potential energy of floors collapsing being converted into kinetic energy during the fall would not be sufficient to produce as large a cloud of fine powdered dust as was seen on the day. (Obviously any collapse would produce *some* dust.)
Well, now. Gee, maybe you have a point here. Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
Now, the mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to
this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t
Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less! Hey, that's over a QUARTER KILOTON! We're talking about as much energy as a SMALL NUCLEAR WEAPON- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building! We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris- and guess what, that's ANOTHER small nuclear weapon-equivalent right there) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing! My goodness. Now what do you suppose made that pyroclastic flow?
OK, so what are we talking about here? How about if we started dropping 1000-pound block buster bombs on top of it- and didn't stop until we'd dropped five hundred and forty of them? Do you think that would do it? No question in my mind, having seen films of what a 1000-pound bomb can do to a city block. After all, the tower is a city block- and there's only 110 floors- that means we get to use four or five 1000-pound bombs on each floor! How much dust do you think that would create? Suppose we put those four or five 1000-pound bombs on each floor and blew them all off at once. How much concrete do you think that would blow into dust? Gee, I bet pretty much all of it, huh?
Are you SURE you want to state that there wasn't enough energy around to do this? Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. Do you think we can do it with that much? Hey, man, we could blow a hole in New York that would be a heckuvalot bigger than the WTC with a kiloton!
Gimme a break; take the time to do a very teeny bit of research and a little easy, basic physics before you start with this stuff. This is SOPHOMORE CRAP we're talking here- you ain't even made it out of high school, you're flunkin' tenth grade, dude!
OK, gotta move along- used up almost an hour of irreplaceable life here.
QUOTE
4) A softening and bending of beams would lead to an asymmetric collapse - this again does not match observed data.
You mean, like how the top thirty stories kinda tipped over before 2 WTC collapsed?
Then again, I'd like to know what your source is for your "asymmetric collapse" theory. How precisely was the heat distributed inside the building? Can you address the issue of the differences in heat distribution from the plane impact, the jet fuel fire, the paper/wood/plastic/cloth fire, and so forth? Do you have a temperature map of the inside of the building where the plane hit it? Do you have information that we would need to know how much of the cladding on the joists and the center columns was damaged, so we can evaluate how much of the heat that you already don't know enough to calculate would have made it into the floor joists and central columns? How about the effects of the heat on the bolts and welds that held the three-story perimeter column sections together? And how about the mechanical damage to the perimeter columns and the core from the plane impacts?
OK, so how come you know enough to maintain your "asymmetric collapse" theory? I say this is handwaving. Provide some credible calculations, and show us your assumptions that led up to this, and by the way try to use something a LITTLE more advanced than the SOPHOMORE BS I see above to substantiate it, K?
Now, that one only took about a minute. So I'm gainin on ya.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4) A softening and bending of beams would lead to an asymmetric collapse - this again does not match observed data. |
You mean, like how the top thirty stories kinda tipped over before 2 WTC collapsed?
Then again, I'd like to know what your source is for your "asymmetric collapse" theory. How precisely was the heat distributed inside the building? Can you address the issue of the differences in heat distribution from the plane impact, the jet fuel fire, the paper/wood/plastic/cloth fire, and so forth? Do you have a temperature map of the inside of the building where the plane hit it? Do you have information that we would need to know how much of the cladding on the joists and the center columns was damaged, so we can evaluate how much of the heat that you already don't know enough to calculate would have made it into the floor joists and central columns? How about the effects of the heat on the bolts and welds that held the three-story perimeter column sections together? And how about the mechanical damage to the perimeter columns and the core from the plane impacts?
OK, so how come you know enough to maintain your "asymmetric collapse" theory? I say this is handwaving. Provide some credible calculations, and show us your assumptions that led up to this, and by the way try to use something a LITTLE more advanced than the SOPHOMORE BS I see above to substantiate it, K?
Now, that one only took about a minute. So I'm gainin on ya.
5) As is usual with these analyses, the paper does not mention WTC 7 - it too underwent free-fall collapse (as shown by at least 3 different video recordings I have) even though it was only hit by a small amount of debris and only had small fires burning for most of the day.
I will tell you something you do not have, because I have searched the 'Net for it. You do not have a picture of the North face of 7 WTC after the falls of the Towers. The only information I have been able to dig up is two anecdotal accounts by firemen- in this case, not grunts but a couple of commanders- who describe a "twenty-story tall hole" in the North face of WTC 7.
Now, a "twenty-story hole" ain't a small amount of damage, and from the descriptions, there were multiple fires visible on the exposed floors- the phrase of the fire commander who had his act together enough to pull all the firemen- grunts, that is- away from the building before it fell down was, "fully involved." Now I'm no fireman, but when I hear a fire commander- this is a guy who's been a grunt, done it for years and years, they don't let anybody else do that job- say things like, "fully involved," I expect that building ain't gonna be good for much afterward. And when I hear there's a "fully involved" fire in a structure that is only 40 stories tall and has a hole half that big in its front, my expectation is, that building probably ain't gonna be standing at the end of the day, and I expect them to prevent any of their firefighters from going in there unless there's people to rescue- and there weren't. The building was evacuated. And the testimentary evidence is, they
didn't send anyone in- it wasn't safe, and they were afraid it was gonna fall down. In fact, they PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED people from going in! And gee whiz, whadda ya know, it DID fall down! Now ain't that a surprise when a fire captain with twenty years' experience thought it was gonna do that- must be a plot! Yahfersureyabetcha.
I'll let you google around for the accounts by these two guys; I'm too damn lazy and done this far too many times to bother going and digging them up again. It was in some firefighting magazine or other, and the accounts were published in mid-2002, IIRC. Have fun.
And don't sling me any more horsepucky about "slight damage," or "small fires," K? I'm envisioning multiple 23-ton three-story three-column perimeter column sections moving at 100 meters/second- that's TWO HUNDRED MILES AN HOUR- slamming into that building. Hey, it's only 40 stories high- where do you suppose a 20-story hole came from, anyway? And what else besides make holes in the skin of the building those COLUMN SECTIONS THE MASS OF A SHERMAN TANK FLYING AROUND AT 200 MILES AN HOUR did, huh? Gee, I bet you could fend one of those off with your SUPER SEKRIT L33T SKILLZ! No WAY they could damage that building, right?
QUOTE
I think that, like the Pancake Collapse theory, the paper is wrong - for the same reasons as given in my slides - and for the reasons I already replied to above.
I don't believe that a single one of your reasons is worth diddly-squat. I don't see any sign that you've done anything but the standard self-serving emotionally-motivated fuzzy-thinking rehash of old, stale horsepucky that half the 'Netdiots out there have already beaten to death, and been hammered for, and fail over and over again to acknowledge because they JUST CAN'T THINK and JUST DON'T KNOW ANY PHYSICS.
I don't find it in any way shocking that you should do this- what I do find is that it is abysmally ignorant. To come on a physics site with crapola like this and expect not to get flamed into scorched meat is incredibly naive, as far as I can tell. I found out about this on another site, where quite a few people who share your "theories" congregate, and from their track record, what I expect from you is a bunch of obfuscation and a bunch more hand waving, and not ONE SINGLE EQUATION to back your statements up. I've seen it all before, over and over and over again; this will be the sixth such debate I've been involved in, and it always winds up the same way: hand waving and a lot of extraneous points, which get demolished like the first set, until I get bored and stop responding.
If the entire proof be known, I'd like to believe that there is someone in the current MISadministration stupid enough to participate in a plot that was as sure to be found out as anything involving demolitions of three buildings in the middle of New York City, but even though I think they're pretty stupid, I don't think they're THAT stupid. I think the skulduggery went a lot deeper than that relatively obvious piece of disinformation- and I have to say, that coming up with yet another theory on how the WTC got blowed up by teh FBI and teh CIA makes a pretty good smokescreen that might prevent some people from asking the REALLY difficult questions, like:
1. Gosh, Elmer, what exactly do we do when we're running a hijacker exercise, if there's actually a hijacking?
2. Lands-o-mercy, Knurlman, how come you suppose none of them airliners got shot down when it's been doctrine that hijacked planes that approach DC will be shot out of the sky for only about the last FIVE DECADES?
3. Hully gee, I wonder how those guys set up an operation that had HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE in it and the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, MOSSAD, and every other spy agency in the entire western world TOTALLY MISSED IT?
4. My goodness, whatever happened to all those WMDs everybody was talking about?
There's plenty more REAL questions where those came from, too. And they are questions that we haven't seen any answers to, despite a congressional investigation and a couple of headhunting expeditions, either. So can we get on with the REAL discussion now, and stop PLAYING WITH OURSELVES?
This was Schneibster's first post on this forum.
Compare this ONE post to ALL of JamesX's posts put together.
It's good for a laugh.
Of course the ONE thing that quickly strikes you is HOW MANY times JamesX TRIES to get Schneibster's attention.
Its down right embarassing, I mean being so forward and all, and being ignored, talk about a REAL Bitch Slap.
Arthur
Information Bureau
8th February 2006 - 12:52 AM
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 8 2006, 12:25 AM)
Sorry, SchNOOB. You registered here on October 13 after this thread was brought to your attention. Find one longtime regular physorg poster to vouch for your activity on this board
before your thorough discrediting on this thread and I'll... well, it's not going to happen, so nevermind.
...and "JamesDweeb" posts again! You've finally decided to check his posting history before making idiot remarks about his posting history? How 'clever' of you! There's hope for you clown types yet.
And since he posted PHYSICS which has YET to be REFUTED with physics instead of idiot blather like yours, how do you conclude that Schneibster was 'demolished'?
And if he was posting on physics before your precious idiot idol, and if after he posted all that was necessary to PROVE Foxx and the rest of you clown parade WRONG, he has CONTINUED to post on physics EVER SINCE in all those OTHER forums/topics, how do you conclude he is 'afraid to log in' and post?
You know, it really is a miracle you can even 'log on' yourself at ALL. Does your mommy do THAT for you as well right after she ties your shoelaces too? Just wondering how you can be so stupid in the 'logic' department and everything else. Plenty of practice I guess. And the 'clown' company you keep will in due course complete the rest of the "JamesDweeb" damage to your already numb skull, I'm sure. Dweeb is right. No clue is 'normal state' for you, huh?
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 02:35 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 8 2006, 12:49 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Oct 13 2005, 04:07 AM)
I feel strongly that insufficient time was spent answering the points in this post. I'd therefore like to pose some answers and see how far we get with them.
QUOTE
1) Their model/analysis treats each floor of the towers in a similar way. This does not seem correct or valid to me for several reasons
First of all, each floor was constructed in an identical manner. Second of all they indeed do
not treat all the floors the same; they make the assumption that ONLY ONE floor contained a fire hot enough to cause sufficient "creep" of the steel to make it collapse. They then show that the forces caused by that collapse were sufficient to cause at least ten times more force on the next lower floor than it could ever have held given even the most optimistic estimate; and that's the very least amount of force it would have seen, the most is more like seventy or eighty times its maximum possible load, making the median roughly thirty times its maximum possible load. And once that next floor had collapsed, even if it had slowed the upper floors above down by HALF (which is a really long stretch, at a thirty-times overload), it would still be moving FASTER when it hit the NEXT floor down than the speed that created the thirty-times overload on the previous floor!
I should also tell you that I did a calculation based on the number of stories above the damaged story, and on them falling JUST ONE FLOOR- and the figures I got showed that the force was OVER A HUNDRED TIMES THE STATIC LOAD. So thirty times is pretty much a conservative estimate, and allows for quite a bit of elasticity in the steel, and for quite a slow collapse rate.
So, did you have some point about how a thirty-times overload of the structure JUST COULDN'T have caused it to fail? How's that again? I really would like to see your calculations on this score.
Then there's the eyewitness accounts, and several video tape sound tracks, where the first collapse, and the second, are clearly audible- and separated by enough time that they are easily distinguishable. They are followed by a series that gets faster and faster until it merges into a rumbling roar, and the camera holder invariably starts running- NOBODY'S stupid enough to just stand there while all that steel and concrete falls out of the sky!
So now we have multiple data points- theoretical, and evidentiary, and the evidence both on multiple video tapes and in multiple pieces of testimony- that supports the much-maligned "pancake theory." As I said to the last person who tried this crap, would you like some syrup? I understand that the pancakes are improved by it, although I can't say I expect it will help the crow you're eating much.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) Their model/analysis treats each floor of the towers in a similar way. This does not seem correct or valid to me for several reasons |
First of all, each floor was constructed in an identical manner. Second of all they indeed do
not treat all the floors the same; they make the assumption that ONLY ONE floor contained a fire hot enough to cause sufficient "creep" of the steel to make it collapse. They then show that the forces caused by that collapse were sufficient to cause at least ten times more force on the next lower floor than it could ever have held given even the most optimistic estimate; and that's the very least amount of force it would have seen, the most is more like seventy or eighty times its maximum possible load, making the median roughly thirty times its maximum possible load. And once that next floor had collapsed, even if it had slowed the upper floors above down by HALF (which is a really long stretch, at a thirty-times overload), it would still be moving FASTER when it hit the NEXT floor down than the speed that created the thirty-times overload on the previous floor!
I should also tell you that I did a calculation based on the number of stories above the damaged story, and on them falling JUST ONE FLOOR- and the figures I got showed that the force was OVER A HUNDRED TIMES THE STATIC LOAD. So thirty times is pretty much a conservative estimate, and allows for quite a bit of elasticity in the steel, and for quite a slow collapse rate.
So, did you have some point about how a thirty-times overload of the structure JUST COULDN'T have caused it to fail? How's that again? I really would like to see your calculations on this score.
Then there's the eyewitness accounts, and several video tape sound tracks, where the first collapse, and the second, are clearly audible- and separated by enough time that they are easily distinguishable. They are followed by a series that gets faster and faster until it merges into a rumbling roar, and the camera holder invariably starts running- NOBODY'S stupid enough to just stand there while all that steel and concrete falls out of the sky!
So now we have multiple data points- theoretical, and evidentiary, and the evidence both on multiple video tapes and in multiple pieces of testimony- that supports the much-maligned "pancake theory." As I said to the last person who tried this crap, would you like some syrup? I understand that the pancakes are improved by it, although I can't say I expect it will help the crow you're eating much.
(a) When the jets hit, only some floors were set on fire. e.g. (as a guess) the lower 500 feet of the tower had no fire at all, so their beams were not weakened or softened by heat of the fire.
No, they certainly weren't weakened by fire- of course, in the presence of an overload that would rapidly increase starting at about THIRTY TIMES their designed load, gee, maybe they didn't need to have a fire to collapse.
QUOTE
(
the floors above would be at a higher temperature due to the heat rising.
Yeah, fire rises STRAIGHT THROUGH concrete doesn't it? Yep, for sure, concrete has a high index of thermal conductivity, right? Ummm, or not. You know, like maybe concrete doesn't conduct heat AT ALL WELL, and perhaps that might cause the heat to, like, you know, build up or something? No, no, that couldn't be right, we all know that HEAT JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOWHERE IN BASIC PHYSICS, right? Oh, and by the way, isn't it just hot AIR that rises- not HEAT ITSELF? No, no, that can't be right, you can't FEEL the heat from a fire from several feet away SIDEWAYS, right?
Lemme see now, that's at least four BASIC PHYSICS principles you've violated right here in this one, single statement. And at least three more in the previous one. How many more will there be? Let's find out.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ( the floors above would be at a higher temperature due to the heat rising. |
Yeah, fire rises STRAIGHT THROUGH concrete doesn't it? Yep, for sure, concrete has a high index of thermal conductivity, right? Ummm, or not. You know, like maybe concrete doesn't conduct heat AT ALL WELL, and perhaps that might cause the heat to, like, you know, build up or something? No, no, that couldn't be right, we all know that HEAT JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOWHERE IN BASIC PHYSICS, right? Oh, and by the way, isn't it just hot AIR that rises- not HEAT ITSELF? No, no, that can't be right, you can't FEEL the heat from a fire from several feet away SIDEWAYS, right?
Lemme see now, that's at least four BASIC PHYSICS principles you've violated right here in this one, single statement. And at least three more in the previous one. How many more will there be? Let's find out.
c) The firemen said the fires were not very bad when they got there.
What fires where were "not very bad?" And just exactly what does "not very bad"
mean, anyway, in terms of a fire that is consuming an entire floor of a building? And, of course, the firemen have magic X-ray eyes and can see up a thousand feet and through steel and concrete to tell just how bad the fire is, right? Oh, and by the way, can I see some LINKS to what these firemen said? Can you maybe provide MULTIPLE SOURCES in case someone is lying or just twisting the truth a little bit so they can sell more subscriptions or whatnot? That would be nice.
QUOTE
(d) With the second jet, much of the jet fuel fireball exploded outside the building so the heat energy was rapidly dissipated, yet the collapse of the tower was essentially the same as the other one.
"heat energy was rapidly dissipated" Here we are again, energy just disappears into nowhere, right? No such thing as conservation of energy; that's just one of those mainstream physics notions like the theory of relativity, and all that BS. Yahsureyabetcha. Oh and by the way, just ignore the paper, cloth, and wood on those floors, EVERYONE KNOWS THEY WON'T BURN and even if they do they DON'T MAKE MUCH HEAT, and even if they do it JUST DISAPPEARS, right? And while we're on the subject of heat, EVERYONE KNOWS that the maximum temperature JUST CAN'T be dependent on the amount of heat and the volume and specific heat of the substance absorbing it, RIGHT? NO WAY could anything get hotter than the fire; after all, we can't smelt iron in a charcoal fire, right? Naww, never happen.
"the collapse of the tower was
essentially the same" Oh, you mean like the top thirty floors leaned over first in this one, whereas they didn't in the other? Or did you mean the part about where the collapses both began at the point of impact, and the second jet hit lower down than the first one? So the amount of building above the damaged part was much greater? But of course EVERYONE KNOWS that the amount of stress on part of a building has NOTHING TO DO with the amount of building above that part! Right? Isn't that right? Yah, sure it is. That's how come the tower hit lower was the first one to collapse, even though it was the last one hit, right?
OK, now let's move on to point number two; looking back, I see nothing behind me but scorched earth. I don't think there's a point number one there any more. I guess you'll have to make something new up for it. Oh, well, THAT'S WHAT YOU DID IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (d) With the second jet, much of the jet fuel fireball exploded outside the building so the heat energy was rapidly dissipated, yet the collapse of the tower was essentially the same as the other one. |
"heat energy was rapidly dissipated" Here we are again, energy just disappears into nowhere, right? No such thing as conservation of energy; that's just one of those mainstream physics notions like the theory of relativity, and all that BS. Yahsureyabetcha. Oh and by the way, just ignore the paper, cloth, and wood on those floors, EVERYONE KNOWS THEY WON'T BURN and even if they do they DON'T MAKE MUCH HEAT, and even if they do it JUST DISAPPEARS, right? And while we're on the subject of heat, EVERYONE KNOWS that the maximum temperature JUST CAN'T be dependent on the amount of heat and the volume and specific heat of the substance absorbing it, RIGHT? NO WAY could anything get hotter than the fire; after all, we can't smelt iron in a charcoal fire, right? Naww, never happen.
"the collapse of the tower was
essentially the same" Oh, you mean like the top thirty floors leaned over first in this one, whereas they didn't in the other? Or did you mean the part about where the collapses both began at the point of impact, and the second jet hit lower down than the first one? So the amount of building above the damaged part was much greater? But of course EVERYONE KNOWS that the amount of stress on part of a building has NOTHING TO DO with the amount of building above that part! Right? Isn't that right? Yah, sure it is. That's how come the tower hit lower was the first one to collapse, even though it was the last one hit, right?
OK, now let's move on to point number two; looking back, I see nothing behind me but scorched earth. I don't think there's a point number one there any more. I guess you'll have to make something new up for it. Oh, well, THAT'S WHAT YOU DID IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT?
2) Again, the authors do not address the near-free fall time.
Hmm, when I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia),
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. Gee, that's almost a quarter of the height it already fell! And we haven't even made it to ELEVEN seconds yet; my goodness, it could have fallen MORE THAN TWICE ITS HEIGHT in that additional four seconds! Well, what do you know. So sure, you betcha, the time for it to fall
three and a half times its own height is REALLY, REALLY CLOSE to the free-fall time, right? My goodness, it's so close I can barely see the difference! Only THREE AND A HALF TIMES ITS HEIGHT, what do you know.
Looks like you flunked BASIC PHYSICS, bud. Back to the drawing board for you, I think. Let's move right along here, I don't want to spend all night on this, now do I?
QUOTE
Their theory/analysis does not therefore match the observed and recorded data.
And that would be because, well, let's see now, perhaps because they did the physics and realized that thirteen seconds was enough time for it to fall in free fall THREE AND A HALF TIMES ITS OWN HEIGHT? No, no, that can't be it. Was it perhaps because HEAT JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOTHING? No, I guess it can't be that either. Well, then, was it perhaps because THERE WAS NO EXTRA TIME ALLOWED FOR THE FLOORS TO COLLAPSE? Well, no, actually it looks like with a thirty times overload, and with TWO AND A HALF TIMES ITS OWN HEIGHT to play with, that can't be it either. I'm sorry, I just can't figure out what you're talking about there. Could you be a little more specific about what precisely it is that you think doesn't match? Oh, no, I guess you can't- YOU DON'T KNOW ENOUGH BASIC PHYSICS!!! Well, that's a real disappointment, isn't it? I guess we'll never know what you were talking about, because you don't have the analysis skills to make good on it!
Moving right along,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Their theory/analysis does not therefore match the observed and recorded data. |
And that would be because, well, let's see now, perhaps because they did the physics and realized that thirteen seconds was enough time for it to fall in free fall THREE AND A HALF TIMES ITS OWN HEIGHT? No, no, that can't be it. Was it perhaps because HEAT JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOTHING? No, I guess it can't be that either. Well, then, was it perhaps because THERE WAS NO EXTRA TIME ALLOWED FOR THE FLOORS TO COLLAPSE? Well, no, actually it looks like with a thirty times overload, and with TWO AND A HALF TIMES ITS OWN HEIGHT to play with, that can't be it either. I'm sorry, I just can't figure out what you're talking about there. Could you be a little more specific about what precisely it is that you think doesn't match? Oh, no, I guess you can't- YOU DON'T KNOW ENOUGH BASIC PHYSICS!!! Well, that's a real disappointment, isn't it? I guess we'll never know what you were talking about, because you don't have the analysis skills to make good on it!
Moving right along,
They talk about weakening, softening, plasticity and elasticity. All these ideas are fine, but "free fall" by definition means "with no resistance".
And of course there was NO RESISTANCE, it was JUST AIR that made it take long enough to fall down THREE AND A HALF TIMES, right? Yep, sure, that's it. You betcha.
QUOTE
Any softening or weakening etc would at least leave some resistance - which would mean the collapse time was significantly greater than the collapse time for free fall (as was observed).
Well, gee, it looks like it DID take a LOT longer- in fact, there was time for a building THREE AND A HALF TIMES TALLER to fall by free fall.
Did you have a point there, somewhere? I'm sorry, I just can't see it- just more scorched earth. Do you feel a sudden sinking sensation? Are you seeing smoke out the canopy? Could that possibly be the ground you see coming up so fast in front of you? Are the wheels coming off? Looks that way to me. I think you're crashing and burning. I suggest bailing out immediately.
Moving right along here, I don't really want to spend any more time on this than I absolutely have to, I've already spent over fifteen minutes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Any softening or weakening etc would at least leave some resistance - which would mean the collapse time was significantly greater than the collapse time for free fall (as was observed). |
Well, gee, it looks like it DID take a LOT longer- in fact, there was time for a building THREE AND A HALF TIMES TALLER to fall by free fall.
Did you have a point there, somewhere? I'm sorry, I just can't see it- just more scorched earth. Do you feel a sudden sinking sensation? Are you seeing smoke out the canopy? Could that possibly be the ground you see coming up so fast in front of you? Are the wheels coming off? Looks that way to me. I think you're crashing and burning. I suggest bailing out immediately.
Moving right along here, I don't really want to spend any more time on this than I absolutely have to, I've already spent over fifteen minutes.
3) If the beams/trusses had just softened, there would not have been a large pyroclastic flow of dust at the time of collapse. Creating a cloud of dust like this requires a great deal of energy. The potential energy of floors collapsing being converted into kinetic energy during the fall would not be sufficient to produce as large a cloud of fine powdered dust as was seen on the day. (Obviously any collapse would produce *some* dust.)
Well, now. Gee, maybe you have a point here. Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
Now, the mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to
this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t
Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less! Hey, that's over a QUARTER KILOTON! We're talking about as much energy as a SMALL NUCLEAR WEAPON- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building! We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris- and guess what, that's ANOTHER small nuclear weapon-equivalent right there) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing! My goodness. Now what do you suppose made that pyroclastic flow?
OK, so what are we talking about here? How about if we started dropping 1000-pound block buster bombs on top of it- and didn't stop until we'd dropped five hundred and forty of them? Do you think that would do it? No question in my mind, having seen films of what a 1000-pound bomb can do to a city block. After all, the tower is a city block- and there's only 110 floors- that means we get to use four or five 1000-pound bombs on each floor! How much dust do you think that would create? Suppose we put those four or five 1000-pound bombs on each floor and blew them all off at once. How much concrete do you think that would blow into dust? Gee, I bet pretty much all of it, huh?
Are you SURE you want to state that there wasn't enough energy around to do this? Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. Do you think we can do it with that much? Hey, man, we could blow a hole in New York that would be a heckuvalot bigger than the WTC with a kiloton!
Gimme a break; take the time to do a very teeny bit of research and a little easy, basic physics before you start with this stuff. This is SOPHOMORE CRAP we're talking here- you ain't even made it out of high school, you're flunkin' tenth grade, dude!
OK, gotta move along- used up almost an hour of irreplaceable life here.
QUOTE
4) A softening and bending of beams would lead to an asymmetric collapse - this again does not match observed data.
You mean, like how the top thirty stories kinda tipped over before 2 WTC collapsed?
Then again, I'd like to know what your source is for your "asymmetric collapse" theory. How precisely was the heat distributed inside the building? Can you address the issue of the differences in heat distribution from the plane impact, the jet fuel fire, the paper/wood/plastic/cloth fire, and so forth? Do you have a temperature map of the inside of the building where the plane hit it? Do you have information that we would need to know how much of the cladding on the joists and the center columns was damaged, so we can evaluate how much of the heat that you already don't know enough to calculate would have made it into the floor joists and central columns? How about the effects of the heat on the bolts and welds that held the three-story perimeter column sections together? And how about the mechanical damage to the perimeter columns and the core from the plane impacts?
OK, so how come you know enough to maintain your "asymmetric collapse" theory? I say this is handwaving. Provide some credible calculations, and show us your assumptions that led up to this, and by the way try to use something a LITTLE more advanced than the SOPHOMORE BS I see above to substantiate it, K?
Now, that one only took about a minute. So I'm gainin on ya.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4) A softening and bending of beams would lead to an asymmetric collapse - this again does not match observed data. |
You mean, like how the top thirty stories kinda tipped over before 2 WTC collapsed?
Then again, I'd like to know what your source is for your "asymmetric collapse" theory. How precisely was the heat distributed inside the building? Can you address the issue of the differences in heat distribution from the plane impact, the jet fuel fire, the paper/wood/plastic/cloth fire, and so forth? Do you have a temperature map of the inside of the building where the plane hit it? Do you have information that we would need to know how much of the cladding on the joists and the center columns was damaged, so we can evaluate how much of the heat that you already don't know enough to calculate would have made it into the floor joists and central columns? How about the effects of the heat on the bolts and welds that held the three-story perimeter column sections together? And how about the mechanical damage to the perimeter columns and the core from the plane impacts?
OK, so how come you know enough to maintain your "asymmetric collapse" theory? I say this is handwaving. Provide some credible calculations, and show us your assumptions that led up to this, and by the way try to use something a LITTLE more advanced than the SOPHOMORE BS I see above to substantiate it, K?
Now, that one only took about a minute. So I'm gainin on ya.
5) As is usual with these analyses, the paper does not mention WTC 7 - it too underwent free-fall collapse (as shown by at least 3 different video recordings I have) even though it was only hit by a small amount of debris and only had small fires burning for most of the day.
I will tell you something you do not have, because I have searched the 'Net for it. You do not have a picture of the North face of 7 WTC after the falls of the Towers. The only information I have been able to dig up is two anecdotal accounts by firemen- in this case, not grunts but a couple of commanders- who describe a "twenty-story tall hole" in the North face of WTC 7.
Now, a "twenty-story hole" ain't a small amount of damage, and from the descriptions, there were multiple fires visible on the exposed floors- the phrase of the fire commander who had his act together enough to pull all the firemen- grunts, that is- away from the building before it fell down was, "fully involved." Now I'm no fireman, but when I hear a fire commander- this is a guy who's been a grunt, done it for years and years, they don't let anybody else do that job- say things like, "fully involved," I expect that building ain't gonna be good for much afterward. And when I hear there's a "fully involved" fire in a structure that is only 40 stories tall and has a hole half that big in its front, my expectation is, that building probably ain't gonna be standing at the end of the day, and I expect them to prevent any of their firefighters from going in there unless there's people to rescue- and there weren't. The building was evacuated. And the testimentary evidence is, they
didn't send anyone in- it wasn't safe, and they were afraid it was gonna fall down. In fact, they PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED people from going in! And gee whiz, whadda ya know, it DID fall down! Now ain't that a surprise when a fire captain with twenty years' experience thought it was gonna do that- must be a plot! Yahfersureyabetcha.
I'll let you google around for the accounts by these two guys; I'm too damn lazy and done this far too many times to bother going and digging them up again. It was in some firefighting magazine or other, and the accounts were published in mid-2002, IIRC. Have fun.
And don't sling me any more horsepucky about "slight damage," or "small fires," K? I'm envisioning multiple 23-ton three-story three-column perimeter column sections moving at 100 meters/second- that's TWO HUNDRED MILES AN HOUR- slamming into that building. Hey, it's only 40 stories high- where do you suppose a 20-story hole came from, anyway? And what else besides make holes in the skin of the building those COLUMN SECTIONS THE MASS OF A SHERMAN TANK FLYING AROUND AT 200 MILES AN HOUR did, huh? Gee, I bet you could fend one of those off with your SUPER SEKRIT L33T SKILLZ! No WAY they could damage that building, right?
QUOTE
I think that, like the Pancake Collapse theory, the paper is wrong - for the same reasons as given in my slides - and for the reasons I already replied to above.
I don't believe that a single one of your reasons is worth diddly-squat. I don't see any sign that you've done anything but the standard self-serving emotionally-motivated fuzzy-thinking rehash of old, stale horsepucky that half the 'Netdiots out there have already beaten to death, and been hammered for, and fail over and over again to acknowledge because they JUST CAN'T THINK and JUST DON'T KNOW ANY PHYSICS.
I don't find it in any way shocking that you should do this- what I do find is that it is abysmally ignorant. To come on a physics site with crapola like this and expect not to get flamed into scorched meat is incredibly naive, as far as I can tell. I found out about this on another site, where quite a few people who share your "theories" congregate, and from their track record, what I expect from you is a bunch of obfuscation and a bunch more hand waving, and not ONE SINGLE EQUATION to back your statements up. I've seen it all before, over and over and over again; this will be the sixth such debate I've been involved in, and it always winds up the same way: hand waving and a lot of extraneous points, which get demolished like the first set, until I get bored and stop responding.
If the entire proof be known, I'd like to believe that there is someone in the current MISadministration stupid enough to participate in a plot that was as sure to be found out as anything involving demolitions of three buildings in the middle of New York City, but even though I think they're pretty stupid, I don't think they're THAT stupid. I think the skulduggery went a lot deeper than that relatively obvious piece of disinformation- and I have to say, that coming up with yet another theory on how the WTC got blowed up by teh FBI and teh CIA makes a pretty good smokescreen that might prevent some people from asking the REALLY difficult questions, like:
1. Gosh, Elmer, what exactly do we do when we're running a hijacker exercise, if there's actually a hijacking?
2. Lands-o-mercy, Knurlman, how come you suppose none of them airliners got shot down when it's been doctrine that hijacked planes that approach DC will be shot out of the sky for only about the last FIVE DECADES?
3. Hully gee, I wonder how those guys set up an operation that had HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE in it and the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, MOSSAD, and every other spy agency in the entire western world TOTALLY MISSED IT?
4. My goodness, whatever happened to all those WMDs everybody was talking about?
There's plenty more REAL questions where those came from, too. And they are questions that we haven't seen any answers to, despite a congressional investigation and a couple of headhunting expeditions, either. So can we get on with the REAL discussion now, and stop PLAYING WITH OURSELVES?
This was Schneibster's first post on this forum.
Compare this ONE post to ALL of JamesX's posts put together.
It's good for a laugh.
Of course the ONE thing that quickly strikes you is HOW MANY times JamesX TRIES to get Schneibster's attention.
Its down right embarassing, I mean being so forward and all, and being ignored, talk about a REAL Bitch Slap.
Arthur
Heh! These Clueless Losers Obsessed With Nonsense (C.L.O.W.N.'s) can't even get the facts on their insults straight.
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 02:46 AM
QUOTE (Information Bureau+Feb 8 2006, 12:52 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 8 2006, 12:25 AM)
Sorry, SchNOOB. You registered here on October 13 after this thread was brought to your attention. Find one longtime regular physorg poster to vouch for your activity on this board
before your thorough discrediting on this thread and I'll... well, it's not going to happen, so nevermind.
...and "JamesDweeb" posts again! You've finally decided to check his posting history before making idiot remarks about his posting history? How 'clever' of you! There's hope for you clown types yet.
And since he posted PHYSICS which has YET to be REFUTED
with physics instead of idiot blather like yours, how do you conclude that Schneibster was 'demolished'?
And if he was posting on physics before your precious idiot idol, and if after he posted all that was necessary to PROVE Foxx and the rest of you clown parade WRONG, he has CONTINUED to post on physics EVER SINCE in all those OTHER forums/topics, how do you conclude he is 'afraid to log in' and post?
You know, it really is a miracle you can even 'log on' yourself at ALL. Does your mommy do THAT for you as well right after she ties your shoelaces too? Just wondering how you can be so stupid in the 'logic' department and everything else. Plenty of practice I guess. And the 'clown' company you keep will in due course complete the rest of the "JamesDweeb" damage to your already numb skull, I'm sure. Dweeb is right. No clue is 'normal state' for you, huh?
Comparing Schneibster to (x)'s posts on this foum is like comparing Stephen Hawkins to Terri Schiavo because they both use wheelchairs.
reasonwhy
8th February 2006 - 02:56 AM
JamesX if you are going to feed the troll’s why don’t you go to a thread shnobster is logged in at and let his team spam that thread.
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 03:16 AM
Yeah, I'm sure the other people looking to do real physics will just love you. Heh!
zoktoberfest
8th February 2006 - 03:29 AM
zoktoberfest
8th February 2006 - 05:16 AM
Ironic thing for me to post just before the server goes down; wouldn't you say?
To tell you the truth, this thread has become such a cesspool, I was secretly hoping it wouldn't come back up.
Guest
8th February 2006 - 10:42 AM
A challenge for MetamarsBoth here and at AH you put forth your, “the ‘Spire’ disintegrated into dust” ‘theory’ and despite not providing any (at AH) or only far insufficient evidence (here) you go on about how you’ve proven this to be so.
You then issued a “challenge” to skeptics to prove you wrong.
QUOTE
I also challenge you (or anybody else on this forum) to state, for the record, where the top of the spire was in each tenth of a second during it's "collapse", and to post the video (showing most of the height) of the spire from which you derive these values. Also, post the frames from .1 seconds before "obscuration", and .1 seconds after. We can then let other visitors to this thread decide if your eyeballs agree with theirs.
Also, we can plot a graph of the downward speed of the top of spire as a function of time, to see if we notice anything unphysical, such as a significantly lessening acceleration ( d3h/dt3 << 0 ) during the latter part of the visible part of the "collapse", which would certainly be at odds with a subsequent deduced supersonic (and perhaps superluminal) collapse phase which postulatations about the spire getting "knocked down" after an initial, telescoping phase, would imply.
I challenge you to take up you own challenge. You have got the burden of proof backwards. The burden is on the person who proposes a theory to offer evidence not for those who think that theory nonsense to prove him wrong. There is no reason for any of your skeptics to waste their time debunking your unsupported theory (and yes, I did read through all of your messages where you used the word ‘spire’ which was a colossal waste of time).
You admit that none of your fellow CTs from this forum are willing to back your theory publicly, why do you think that is?
Len
PS - Try responding with evidence rather than invective.
lenbrazil
8th February 2006 - 10:45 AM
I didn't notice that I wasn't logged in. The message above was posted by me.
lenbrazil
8th February 2006 - 10:49 AM
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 8 2006, 03:29 AM)
Well since the thread is dead:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45137http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45123http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44912Nonsense begets nonsense.
Those stories were entertaining. Unfortunately I'm sure more than a few idiots won't get the joke(s) and cite those articles as true.
frater plecticus
8th February 2006 - 12:45 PM
Lightening the tone somewhat...
QUOTE
IN DEFENSE OF PAT ROBERTSON
1 Artemis 83 p.s.U.
Nothing is true. All is permitted.
Hasan i Sabbah
Just as a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, even a Christian Fundamentalist gets a savvy notion every now and then. I think rev. Robertson had a good idea when he suggested replacing war with assassination in one case, on economic grounds. He merely didn’t carry the concept far enough.
I suggest that we should abolish war utterly and replace it entirely with selective assassination. Think about the savings this would mean, in this age when even our “little” wars cost billions of dollars a year, and rememer the cogent observation of the late Senator Dirkson: “A billion here, a billion there – pretty soon you’re talking about REAL Money.” We’ve already gotten our national debt so high that our posterity “unto the seventh generation” will never pay it off; do we really need to enslave the whole future to the international bankers?
On the moral side, killing a few dozen foreigners a year instead of a few hundred thousand should seem less messy, to say the least of it, especially when you consider the collatarel damage to our own side. How much blood and death do we need?
Reversing a sentimental error of the ‘60s, the new anti-war slogan should be MAKE ASSASSINATIONS, NOT WARS.
And, best of all, if this idea catches on internationally we can expect at least 50 contracts on George Bush the first week.
http://rawilson.com/main.shtml
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 01:34 PM
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 8 2006, 10:42 AM)
A challenge for MetamarsBoth here and at AH you put forth your, “the ‘Spire’ disintegrated into dust” ‘theory’ and despite not providing any (at AH) or only far insufficient evidence (here) you go on about how you’ve proven this to be so.
You then issued a “challenge” to skeptics to prove you wrong.
QUOTE
I also challenge you (or anybody else on this forum) to state, for the record, where the top of the spire was in each tenth of a second during it's "collapse", and to post the video (showing most of the height) of the spire from which you derive these values. Also, post the frames from .1 seconds before "obscuration", and .1 seconds after. We can then let other visitors to this thread decide if your eyeballs agree with theirs.
Also, we can plot a graph of the downward speed of the top of spire as a function of time, to see if we notice anything unphysical, such as a significantly lessening acceleration ( d3h/dt3 << 0 ) during the latter part of the visible part of the "collapse", which would certainly be at odds with a subsequent deduced supersonic (and perhaps superluminal) collapse phase which postulatations about the spire getting "knocked down" after an initial, telescoping phase, would imply.
I challenge you to take up you own challenge. You have got the burden of proof backwards. The burden is on the person who proposes a theory to offer evidence not for those who think that theory nonsense to prove him wrong. There is no reason for any of your skeptics to waste their time debunking your unsupported theory (and yes, I did read through all of your messages where you used the word ‘spire’ which was a colossal waste of time).
You admit that none of your fellow CTs from this forum are willing to back your theory publicly, why do you think that is?
Len
PS - Try responding with evidence rather than invective.
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
Foxx
8th February 2006 - 02:20 PM
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneiby
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
adoucette
8th February 2006 - 02:28 PM
Foxx,
Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that that flange is an EXAMPLE of the instant POWDERIZATION required to support Metamar's theory of the disappearing Spire?
Surely you are not stooping THAT low?
Arthur
adoucette
8th February 2006 - 02:32 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 7 2006, 10:00 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 7 2006, 04:22 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 7 2006, 05:55 AM)
newton,
Now you are being dishonest, taking a page from Foxx's playbook.
QUOTE
nist forensically determined that the (actual)steel was exposed to fires NO HOTTER THAN 600 DEGREES.
NIST made NO SUCH STATEMENT.
If you are going to quote from the NIST document at least be accurate and put the info in context.
And you wonder why CT'ers are ignored?
Arthur
they measured three columns that were exposed to 250C, and ONE at 600C.
they made such a statement. are you saying history is wrong? because, it's already history.
and you wonder why people are contemptuous of NIST.
Why would MY statements make anyone contemptuous of NIST?
That's frankly absurd.
But on to the key point.
I had hope that one of the CT'ers would show some intellectual honesty and correct a wayward member from their side of the fence.
Tell ya what, I'll give this one a few more hours to stew and see if anyone on that side still believes in HONEST debate.
Of course this also gives you time to correct your error, which if it was me that made the error, I'd rather find and fix then being shown that I'm wrong.
Arthur
Still no corrections from the CT'ers?
So you all agree with newton that NIST claimed that no actual steel was EXPOSED to fires hotter than 600 C?
Arthur
brian
8th February 2006 - 02:36 PM
Now that Dr Griffins words -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
- are widely accepted, becoming more so each passing day, we reasonable people who have looked at the evidence can afford to ignore the desperate gathering here trying to stem this tide.
If we want the shills to earn their dirty money just repost the good work already posted that they have been so hilarious attempting to answer.
One of my favourites is the Professor Jones question - what happened to the angular momentum of Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower when it begins to topple over?
The replies deserve ........well, The Onion treatment.
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.htmlWhy Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
adoucette
8th February 2006 - 02:50 PM
QUOTE (Brian+)
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
- are widely accepted, becoming more so each passing day, we reasonable people who have looked at the evidence can afford to ignore the desperate gathering here trying to stem this tide.
Stem this tide?
Its almost 5 years now and after all this time all you have is a couple of BYU fanatics and Griffin?
This is your Tide?
I guess for Salt Lake City this IS a tide.
Arthur
brian
8th February 2006 - 03:02 PM
To mark the landmark 100000 views and thank Andrew Johnson et al -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
D R Griffin
frater plecticus
8th February 2006 - 03:03 PM
QUOTE
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
- are widely accepted, becoming more so each passing day, we reasonable people who have looked at the evidence can afford to ignore the desperate gathering here trying to stem this tide.
I, personally would be hesitant in attributing the horrors of 9-11 to
terrorists within our own government. There is no doubt,
some of them are complicit although probably not with the attacks themselves, that appear to be orchestrated, in part by the same people that are the main beneficiaries of the attacks- the oil and space (arms) billionaires. The warmongers.
"- are widely accepted, becoming more so each passing day, we reasonable people who have looked at the evidence can afford to ignore the desperate gathering here trying to stem this tide" is however, an astute and intelligent observation. The current is unstoppable.
100 000 views
brian
8th February 2006 - 03:12 PM
frater plecticus, I have no problem in accepting your analysis but there are clearly those in the US administration who were necessary for the orchestration. Better to have a target which any investigation can focus on - to begin with.
adoucette
8th February 2006 - 03:19 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Feb 8 2006, 11:03 AM)
"- are widely accepted, becoming more so each passing day, we reasonable people who have looked at the evidence can afford to ignore the desperate gathering here trying to stem this tide" is however, an astute and intelligent observation. The current is unstoppable.
100 000 views
Ever notice how CT'ers like to compliment each other?
Well done Brian, that was Soooooo Astute.
I Looooove Foxx
Good Call Metamars....
Etc etc etc
Then they continually post quotes by the biggest light in the CT universe, Dr Griffin, as if his pithy comments should be chisseled in stone somewhere
I think its because they get no OUTSIDE attention.
Which is what they crave, but can't seem to attract.
I wonder how many million watched that show on A&E, Flight 93?
Let's Roll.
Arthur
frater plecticus
8th February 2006 - 04:12 PM
QUOTE
Better to have a target which any investigation can focus on - to begin with.
Better still, a word or concept .. SEPTEMBERGATE.
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 04:12 PM
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 8 2006, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneiby
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdfNow look for a semi powderized
column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 04:17 PM
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 02:36 PM)
Now that Dr Griffins words -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
- are widely accepted, becoming more so each passing day, we reasonable people who have looked at the evidence can afford to ignore the desperate gathering here trying to stem this tide.
If we want the shills to earn their dirty money just repost the good work already posted that they have been so hilarious attempting to answer.
One of my favourites is the Professor Jones question - what happened to the angular momentum of Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower when it begins to topple over?
The replies deserve ........well, The Onion treatment.
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.htmlWhy Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html Below is the list of people who have staked their reputation to the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ The paper...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotisEditorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.htmlChing S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.htmlJoel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.phpBojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.htmlLambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htmArif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htmArvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htmKhaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htmYunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtmlWilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#iChiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=showVerna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 04:19 PM
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 03:02 PM)
To mark the landmark 100000 views and thank Andrew Johnson et al -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
D R Griffin
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputation to the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ The paper...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotisEditorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.htmlChing S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.htmlJoel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.phpBojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.htmlLambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htmArif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htmArvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htmKhaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htmYunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtmlWilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#iChiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=showVerna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 04:33 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Feb 8 2006, 03:03 PM)
QUOTE
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
- are widely accepted, becoming more so each passing day, we reasonable people who have looked at the evidence can afford to ignore the desperate gathering here trying to stem this tide.
I, personally would be hesitant in attributing the horrors of 9-11 to
terrorists within our own government. There is no doubt,
some of them are complicit although probably not with the attacks themselves, that appear to be orchestrated, in part by the same people that are the main beneficiaries of the attacks- the oil and space (arms) billionaires. The warmongers.
"- are widely accepted, becoming more so each passing day, we reasonable people who have looked at the evidence can afford to ignore the desperate gathering here trying to stem this tide" is however, an astute and intelligent observation. The current is unstoppable.
100 000 views
Do you have anything to back up this statement? And even if they were, it doesn't have anything to do with CD. They could have paid Osama to have his nut cases fly planes into the buildings and achieved the same response from us without blowing it up. You could be right any still wrong about CD.
brian
8th February 2006 - 04:33 PM
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 04:19 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 03:02 PM)
To mark the landmark 100000 views and thank Andrew Johnson et al -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
D R Griffin
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputation to the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ The paper...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotisEditorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.htmlChing S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.htmlJoel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.phpBojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.htmlLambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htmArif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htmArvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htmKhaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htmYunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtmlWilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#iChiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=showVerna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
"The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
So a load of old tosh constitutes a peer review? Dressed up perhaps but a load of old tosh nonetheless.
Prolonged = tosh
very high temperature = tosh.
Therefore - The reason is the dynamic consequence = tosh.
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 04:34 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 8 2006, 03:19 PM)
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Feb 8 2006, 11:03 AM)
"- are widely accepted, becoming more so each passing day, we reasonable people who have looked at the evidence can afford to ignore the desperate gathering here trying to stem this tide" is however, an astute and intelligent observation. The current is unstoppable.
100 000 views
Ever notice how CT'ers like to compliment each other?
Well done Brian, that was Soooooo Astute.
I Looooove Foxx
Good Call Metamars....
Etc etc etc
Then they continually post quotes by the biggest light in the CT universe, Dr Griffin, as if his pithy comments should be chisseled in stone somewhere
I think its because they get no OUTSIDE attention.
Which is what they crave, but can't seem to attract.
I wonder how many million watched that show on A&E, Flight 93?
Let's Roll.
Arthur
Another great post adoucette!
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 04:36 PM
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 04:33 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 04:19 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 03:02 PM)
To mark the landmark 100000 views and thank Andrew Johnson et al -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
D R Griffin
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputation to the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ The paper...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotisEditorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.htmlChing S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.htmlJoel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.phpBojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.htmlLambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htmArif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htmArvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htmKhaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htmYunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtmlWilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#iChiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=showVerna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
"The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
So a load of old tosh constitutes a peer review? Dressed up perhaps but a load of old tosh nonetheless.
Prolonged = tosh
very high temperature = tosh.
Therefore - The reason is the dynamic consequence = tosh.
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html Below is the list of people who have staked their reputation to
the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ The paper...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotisEditorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.htmlChing S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.htmlJoel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.phpBojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.htmlLambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htmArif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htmArvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htmKhaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htmYunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtmlWilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#iChiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=showVerna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
adoucette
8th February 2006 - 04:38 PM
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 12:33 PM)
"The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
So a load of old tosh constitutes a peer review? Dressed up perhaps but a load of old tosh nonetheless.
Prolonged = tosh
very high temperature = tosh.
Therefore - The reason is the dynamic consequence = tosh.
Well done Brian, That was Sooooo Astute.
Arthur
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 04:40 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 8 2006, 04:38 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 12:33 PM)
"The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
So a load of old tosh constitutes a peer review? Dressed up perhaps but a load of old tosh nonetheless.
Prolonged = tosh
very high temperature = tosh.
Therefore - The reason is the dynamic consequence = tosh.
Well done Brian, That was Sooooo Astute.
Arthur
Notice his only reply is more cut and paste from CT sites. I can do the same.
newton
8th February 2006 - 05:17 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 8 2006, 02:32 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 7 2006, 10:00 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 7 2006, 04:22 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 7 2006, 05:55 AM)
newton,
Now you are being dishonest, taking a page from Foxx's playbook.
QUOTE
nist forensically determined that the (actual)steel was exposed to fires NO HOTTER THAN 600 DEGREES.
NIST made NO SUCH STATEMENT.
If you are going to quote from the NIST document at least be accurate and put the info in context.
And you wonder why CT'ers are ignored?
Arthur
they measured three columns that were exposed to 250C, and ONE at 600C.
they made such a statement. are you saying history is wrong? because, it's already history.
and you wonder why people are contemptuous of NIST.
Why would MY statements make anyone contemptuous of NIST?
That's frankly absurd.
But on to the key point.
I had hope that one of the CT'ers would show some intellectual honesty and correct a wayward member from their side of the fence.
Tell ya what, I'll give this one a few more hours to stew and see if anyone on that side still believes in HONEST debate.
Of course this also gives you time to correct your error, which if it was me that made the error, I'd rather find and fix then being shown that I'm wrong.
Arthur
Still no corrections from the CT'ers?
So you all agree with newton that NIST claimed that no actual steel was
EXPOSED to fires hotter than 600 C?
Arthur
let me.
that's not what i said.
i said the pieces of actual steel that were actually tested for effects of heat exposure were measured at no higher than 600C.
i'm not talking about 'myth 5, the two towers' video game simulations which have temperatures soaring into the 1200C range near the trusses. that is pure, unadulterated speculation based on the GIGO principle.
once again, ACTUAL MEASURED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE was found to be mostly 250C, and ONE PIECE of steel was measured at 600C.
this is the temperature of the STEEL, and not the fires, too. the fires would have obviously been hotter to heat steel even that much.
and you know it.
as steven jones said, it's not like all the fuel was piled up against the steel.
lenbrazil
8th February 2006 - 05:31 PM
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 04:19 PM)
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputation to the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ The paper...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotisEditorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html[...]
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.htmlLambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/...
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm...
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
They were all obviously NWO agents and in on it!!! LOL
Even the ones from overseas
PS - What ever happened to metamars?
newton
8th February 2006 - 05:57 PM
lenbrazil, we 'CTs' refer to it as the 'new WORLD order', not the 'AMERICAN world order'.
they probably ARE all in on it. why not!? really. why not.
would you believe some character could rise to power in some country, and convince all the people to build giant ovens to mass exterminate a certain race that he didn't like? how many would have to be 'in on it'?
and yet, we both know that it happened.
some of us know that the royal english family, is actually not the house of windsor, but rather, the house of hapsburg.
some of us know that stuff happens in darkened rooms behind closed doors. stuff like 'you stratch my back, and i'll scratch yours'.
how did the rothschilds come into their fortune? that's right. by decieving the whole of england with a huge lie.
were the rothschilds even english? no? did anyone take their ill gotten gains away?
if i knew at the time, and told people these things, i would be labelled a 'conspiracy theorist'. it would not make the truth any less true. that particular family is now one of the vanguards of the NWO. it is just an old serpent which is trying to learn new tricks to try and keep up with technology's new challenge to their 'author'ity(aas in, authoring history).
there are around six BILLION people in the world, now, and that list of eggheads is a small drop in the very big bucket.
they don't call them 'armies' for nothing. otherwise, they'd be called 'gangs'(which is actually applicable to the bilderberger/CFR/PNAC/skull and bones/bohemian grove DEMONS. they are no more than a big gang that holds ALL the money AND ALL the armies.).
brian
8th February 2006 - 05:58 PM
Why would anyone stake their reputation on such tosh as this below is the question -
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
At best it is a wild guess which actually ignores the evidence and the use of the word prolonged makes it highly suspect in light of previous fires and fire tests on steel.
There is no evidence to support Murphy's claim and alongside the overwhelming evidence of controlled demolition it can easily be seen as just another straw for those desperate to avoid or obfuscate the issue to cling to.
As the thread is still getting a good number of views -
Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 06:08 PM
QUOTE (newton+Feb 8 2006, 05:57 PM)
lenbrazil, we 'CTs' refer to it as the 'new WORLD order', not the 'AMERICAN world order'.
they probably ARE all in on it. why not!? really. why not.
would you believe some character could rise to power in some country, and convince all the people to build giant ovens to mass exterminate a certain race that he didn't like? how many would have to be 'in on it'?
and yet, we both know that it happened.
some of us know that the royal english family, is actually not the house of windsor, but rather, the house of hapsburg.
some of us know that stuff happens in darkened rooms behind closed doors. stuff like 'you stratch my back, and i'll scratch yours'.
how did the rothschilds come into their fortune? that's right. by decieving the whole of england with a huge lie.
were the rothschilds even english? no? did anyone take their ill gotten gains away?
if i knew at the time, and told people these things, i would be labelled a 'conspiracy theorist'. it would not make the truth any less true. that particular family is now one of the vanguards of the NWO. it is just an old serpent which is trying to learn new tricks to try and keep up with technology's new challenge to their 'author'ity(aas in, authoring history).
there are around six BILLION people in the world, now, and that list of eggheads is a small drop in the very big bucket.
they don't call them 'armies' for nothing. otherwise, they'd be called 'gangs'(which is actually applicable to the bilderberger/CFR/PNAC/skull and bones/bohemian grove DEMONS. they are no more than a big gang that holds ALL the money AND ALL the armies.).
Moron, Hitler didn't convince the people to build ovens. He just built them. What you're trying to say is the ovens don't exist even after we prove they do. Not the same thing.
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 06:12 PM
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 05:58 PM)
Why would anyone stake their reputation on such tosh as this below is the question -
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
At best it is a wild guess which actually ignores the evidence and the use of the word prolonged makes it highly suspect in light of previous fires and fire tests on steel.
There is no evidence to support Murphy's claim and alongside the overwhelming evidence of controlled demolition it can easily be seen as just another straw for those desperate to avoid or obfuscate the issue to cling to.
As the thread is still getting a good number of views -
Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192 Below is the list of people who have staked their reputation to
the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ The paper...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotisEditorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.htmlChing S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.htmlJoel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.phpBojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.htmlLambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htmArif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htmArvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htmKhaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htmYunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtmlWilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#iChiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=showVerna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
adoucette
8th February 2006 - 06:12 PM
QUOTE (newton+Feb 8 2006, 01:17 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 8 2006, 02:32 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 7 2006, 10:00 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 7 2006, 04:22 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 7 2006, 05:55 AM)
newton,
Now you are being dishonest, taking a page from Foxx's playbook.
QUOTE
nist forensically determined that the (actual)steel was exposed to fires NO HOTTER THAN 600 DEGREES.
NIST made NO SUCH STATEMENT.
If you are going to quote from the NIST document at least be accurate and put the info in context.
And you wonder why CT'ers are ignored?
Arthur
they measured three columns that were exposed to 250C, and ONE at 600C.
they made such a statement. are you saying history is wrong? because, it's already history.
and you wonder why people are contemptuous of NIST.
Why would MY statements make anyone contemptuous of NIST?
That's frankly absurd.
But on to the key point.
I had hope that one of the CT'ers would show some intellectual honesty and correct a wayward member from their side of the fence.
Tell ya what, I'll give this one a few more hours to stew and see if anyone on that side still believes in HONEST debate.
Of course this also gives you time to correct your error, which if it was me that made the error, I'd rather find and fix then being shown that I'm wrong.
Arthur
Still no corrections from the CT'ers?
So you all agree with newton that NIST claimed that no actual steel was
EXPOSED to fires hotter than 600 C?
Arthur
let me.
that's not what i said.
i said the pieces of actual steel that were actually tested for effects of heat exposure were measured at no higher than 600C.
i'm not talking about 'myth 5, the two towers' video game simulations which have temperatures soaring into the 1200C range near the trusses. that is pure, unadulterated speculation based on the GIGO principle.
once again, ACTUAL MEASURED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE was found to be mostly 250C, and ONE PIECE of steel was measured at 600C.
this is the temperature of the STEEL, and not the fires, too. the fires would have obviously been hotter to heat steel even that much.
and you know it.
as steven jones said, it's not like all the fuel was piled up against the steel.
Newton, I INCLUDED YOUR QUOTE and you might have MEANT to write "the pieces of actual steel that were actually tested for effects of heat exposure were measured at no higher than 600C."
But what you WROTE was
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| nist forensically determined that the (actual)steel was exposed to fires NO HOTTER THAN 600 DEGREES. |
NIST made NO SUCH STATEMENT.
If you are going to quote from the NIST document at least be accurate and put the info in context.
And you wonder why CT'ers are ignored?
Arthur
they measured three columns that were exposed to 250C, and ONE at 600C.
they made such a statement. are you saying history is wrong? because, it's already history.
and you wonder why people are contemptuous of NIST.
Why would MY statements make anyone contemptuous of NIST?
That's frankly absurd.
But on to the key point.
I had hope that one of the CT'ers would show some intellectual honesty and correct a wayward member from their side of the fence.
Tell ya what, I'll give this one a few more hours to stew and see if anyone on that side still believes in HONEST debate.
Of course this also gives you time to correct your error, which if it was me that made the error, I'd rather find and fix then being shown that I'm wrong.
Arthur
Still no corrections from the CT'ers?
So you all agree with newton that NIST claimed that no actual steel was
EXPOSED to fires hotter than 600 C?
Arthur
let me.
that's not what i said.
i said the pieces of actual steel that were actually tested for effects of heat exposure were measured at no higher than 600C.
i'm not talking about 'myth 5, the two towers' video game simulations which have temperatures soaring into the 1200C range near the trusses. that is pure, unadulterated speculation based on the GIGO principle.
once again, ACTUAL MEASURED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE was found to be mostly 250C, and ONE PIECE of steel was measured at 600C.
this is the temperature of the STEEL, and not the fires, too. the fires would have obviously been hotter to heat steel even that much.
and you know it.
as steven jones said, it's not like all the fuel was piled up against the steel.
Newton, I INCLUDED YOUR QUOTE and you might have MEANT to write "the pieces of actual steel that were actually tested for effects of heat exposure were measured at no higher than 600C."
But what you WROTE was
they measured three columns that were exposed to 250C, and ONE at 600C.
So you wrote that the temps the steel was exposed to was no higher than 250 or 600 this but that is NOT what NIST claimed.
Arthur
newton
8th February 2006 - 06:17 PM
exposed, as in, the temperature of the air directly beside the steel, would be very close, with the air temp being higher. when i say 'exposed,', i mean 'this steel reached these temperatures, and no higher'. the air may have been signifigantly hotter, but the air has not been accused of plastic deformation.
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 06:21 PM
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htmThese experiments found temperatures between 800-1,100 degrees C. That's C, not F.
That there was enough fire to produce "prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature" is unquestionable.
Guest_Sentinel
8th February 2006 - 06:24 PM
Black smoke usually means an incomplete burn.
Black smoke before the collapse, white smoke after.
It burned for 100 days and there was a report from the head of tulley construction that it was molten steel. JPF4 Fuel doesn't create molten steel and doesn't burn for 100 days.
Strength and Honor
Sentinel
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 06:25 PM
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 04:12 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 8 2006, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneiby
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdfNow look for a semi powderized
column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Guest_Sentinel
8th February 2006 - 06:31 PM
Commonn Sense:
Could be...
Maybe....
Sentinel
newton
8th February 2006 - 06:34 PM
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 06:21 PM)
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htmThese experiments found temperatures between 800-1,100 degrees C. That's C, not F.
That there was enough fire to produce "prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature" is unquestionable.
wow. how did they get the twin towers into that little box? NIST can do ANYTHING! they're 'scientists'.
that experiment INDICATES some things, but has little to do with the REALITY of the disaster. air volumes and convection being one of the obvious and glaring differences, fer starters.
the temperatures are given for the fires in this experiment, and not the steel. strange, no?
the steel that was actually FROM the towers, was measured as having been heated(better?) to 250C, and 600C. no more.
adoucette
8th February 2006 - 06:58 PM
BS.
EXPOSED means you are talking about AIR temperature.
REACHED means you are talking about STEEL temperature.
Pretty friggin obvious
But even though you were wrong look how you get into linguistic pretzels to try to wiggle out of it.
QUOTE (newton+)
when i say 'exposed,', i mean 'this steel reached these temperatures, and no higher'. the air may have been signifigantly hotter
i.e. in Newtonspeak EXPOSED = REACHED
Right
Arthur
yesitdid
8th February 2006 - 07:00 PM
QUOTE (Guest_Sentinel+Feb 8 2006, 06:24 PM)
Black smoke usually means an incomplete burn.
Black smoke before the collapse, white smoke after.
It burned for 100 days and there was a report from the head of tulley construction that it was molten steel.
Kinda indicates nicely that it wasn't thermite unless there were indeed tons o' the stuff.
yesitdid
8th February 2006 - 07:03 PM
QUOTE (newton+Feb 8 2006, 06:34 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 06:21 PM)
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htmThese experiments found temperatures between 800-1,100 degrees C. That's C, not F.
That there was enough fire to produce "prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature" is unquestionable.
wow. how did they get the twin towers into that little box? NIST can do ANYTHING! they're 'scientists'.
that experiment INDICATES some things, but has little to do with the REALITY of the disaster. air volumes and convection being one of the obvious and glaring differences, fer starters.
the temperatures are given for the fires in this experiment, and not the steel. strange, no?
the steel that was actually FROM the towers, was measured as having been heated(better?) to 250C, and 600C. no more.
,,, and if you look at where, exactly, those steel samples were from in the towers and the temperatures that NIST says that area reached you will notice that there is agreement between the computer sim and the actual evidence of those columns.
Common Sense
8th February 2006 - 07:17 PM
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 06:25 PM)
