I'm curious though, how do you know how far down it went into the pile to get that piece of steel?
well you know the maximum distance it could reach was the length of the arm of the excavator as it clutched the straw coloured steel.
Gordon
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 12:42 AM)
That's what intelligent people who are honest enough to know they don't know everything say when they don't know everything. I'm PROUD of saying "Might have" and "Could have" because we just don't know. For you to suggest you KNOW is absurd.
Rather than have you tell me what I suggested we can just dig it up.
My actual words: "..not only unlikely, but ridiculously so.."
which were followed in a later post by: "After further review, I would be willing to reconsider my position on the passport if any of the following could be evidenced..."
Whereupon when actual evidence was presented I reconsidered my position. So what is the problem?
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 12:25 AM)
I guess you think the NIST report showing office furniture reaching 1,100 degrees C is fabricated.
Your guess would be wrong. I am assuming you mean the tests that Nist conducted on a simulated office environment. I'm pretty sure they didn't do tests of crushed office materials mixed with a far larger mass of crushed concrete, gypsum and other inert materials in a compacted haphazhard fashion . I am positive that had they conducted such tests they would not have pulled steel columns from the debris which were hotter than their fuel-containing surroundings and most certainly not hotter than the dispersed fuel and oxygen starved atmosphere would allow.
Gordon
That's just it Gordon, neither have you. You haven't done test to know if office furniture can reach those temps in that environment either. I only say it's a possibility due to the fire testing which HAS been done. Not that that's what actually happened. I posed a question, I didn't give an answer. You said "we can be absolutely certain that it would not burn at a sufficiently high temperature" but you really can't be can you. You haven't tested this so how certian can you be?
Until I showed the NIST test results people were saying office fires could not reach 1,000 degrees either.
You can go back to every post I ever made on this issue and you will see I've always maintained there isn't enough evidence to know what caused the high temps. (So has Adou.) All we can do is speculate. All I said was (And still say) is that Adou bellows idea has more evidence to support it. We KNOW there was office furniture and KNOW there was fuel. We KNOW there was gaps under the rubble pile because people felt the ground settling. We also KNOW trucks were passing over it. Evidence, evidence, evidence. Not ONE shred of evidence for thermite or any other explosive agent.
That's all I said.
Your guess would be wrong. I am assuming you mean the tests that Nist conducted on a simulated office environment. I'm pretty sure they didn't do tests of crushed office materials mixed with a far larger mass of crushed concrete, gypsum and other inert materials in a compacted haphazhard fashion . I am positive that had they conducted such tests they would not have pulled steel columns from the debris which were hotter than their fuel-containing surroundings and most certainly not hotter than the dispersed fuel and oxygen starved atmosphere would allow.
Gordon
That's just it Gordon, neither have you. You haven't done test to know if office furniture can reach those temps in that environment either. I only say it's a possibility due to the fire testing which HAS been done. Not that that's what actually happened. I posed a question, I didn't give an answer. You said "we can be absolutely certain that it would not burn at a sufficiently high temperature" but you really can't be can you. You haven't tested this so how certian can you be?
Until I showed the NIST test results people were saying office fires could not reach 1,000 degrees either.
You can go back to every post I ever made on this issue and you will see I've always maintained there isn't enough evidence to know what caused the high temps. (So has Adou.) All we can do is speculate. All I said was (And still say) is that Adou bellows idea has more evidence to support it. We KNOW there was office furniture and KNOW there was fuel. We KNOW there was gaps under the rubble pile because people felt the ground settling. We also KNOW trucks were passing over it. Evidence, evidence, evidence. Not ONE shred of evidence for thermite or any other explosive agent.
That's all I said.
Whereupon when actual evidence was presented I reconsidered my position. So what is the problem?
Sorry to throw another spanner in the works, but now you have to wrestle with the coincidence that Mr Iskandar was one of only three names which were not on the original passenger list issued. His name was added at a later date.
So we have the curious passport incident explained away by another curious coincidence.
Someone please turn the light on.
Gordon
Sorry to throw another spanner in the works, but now you have to wrestle with the coincidence that Mr Iskandar was one of only three names which were not on the original passenger list issued. His name was added at a later date.
So we have the curious passport incident explained away by another curious coincidence.
Someone please turn the light on.
Gordon
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 21 2006, 08:55 PM)
I'm curious though, how do you know how far down it went into the pile to get that piece of steel?
well you know the maximum distance it could reach was the length of the arm of the excavator as it clutched the straw coloured steel.
Gordon
Which means that could be a HOLE its being pulled out of.
Or it could be swinging from an OUT OF SIGHT location.
Or ???? Who the hell knows???
What I KNOW to be true is that you can't tell as MUCH as you think you can from a SINGLE STILL photograph.
Arthur
well you know the maximum distance it could reach was the length of the arm of the excavator as it clutched the straw coloured steel.
Gordon
Which means that could be a HOLE its being pulled out of.
Or it could be swinging from an OUT OF SIGHT location.
Or ???? Who the hell knows???
What I KNOW to be true is that you can't tell as MUCH as you think you can from a SINGLE STILL photograph.
Arthur
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Feb 22 2006, 12:57 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 12:42 AM)
That's what intelligent people who are honest enough to know they don't know everything say when they don't know everything. I'm PROUD of saying "Might have" and "Could have" because we just don't know. For you to suggest you KNOW is absurd.
Rather than have you tell me what I suggested we can just dig it up.
My actual words: "..not only unlikely, but ridiculously so.."
which were followed in a later post by: "After further review, I would be willing to reconsider my position on the passport if any of the following could be evidenced..."
Whereupon when actual evidence was presented I reconsidered my position. So what is the problem?
The problem was the tone of your post. Whenever you use the word "ridiculous" when characterizing what I conclude to be true you are insulting me. I usually respond in kind.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 21 2006, 09:02 PM)
Whereupon when actual evidence was presented I reconsidered my position. So what is the problem?
Sorry to throw another spanner in the works, but now you have to wrestle with the coincidence that Mr Iskandar was one of only three names which were not on the original passenger list issued. His name was added at a later date.
So we have the curious passport incident explained away by another curious coincidence.
Someone please turn the light on.
Gordon
And the relevance of that is????
Let me guess, they murdered Iskander to prop up the Atta passport story?
Arthur
Sorry to throw another spanner in the works, but now you have to wrestle with the coincidence that Mr Iskandar was one of only three names which were not on the original passenger list issued. His name was added at a later date.
So we have the curious passport incident explained away by another curious coincidence.
Someone please turn the light on.
Gordon
And the relevance of that is????
Let me guess, they murdered Iskander to prop up the Atta passport story?
Arthur
So maybe tomorrow at work I will get some rolled up newspaper and some bits of wood and old plastic, throw them in a bucket with a liberal splashing of diesel, then set it alight.
Then I'll do the same but also throw in loads more sand or a dry concrete mix maybe, and crushed up plaster-board, stick in a few pieces of steel and see what happens.
I'll see if I can find a few bits of aluminium as well, but I don't want a thermite reaction so I better be careful.
Or maybe I won't and just use my basic intuition and scientific education.
Gordon.
Then I'll do the same but also throw in loads more sand or a dry concrete mix maybe, and crushed up plaster-board, stick in a few pieces of steel and see what happens.
I'll see if I can find a few bits of aluminium as well, but I don't want a thermite reaction so I better be careful.
Or maybe I won't and just use my basic intuition and scientific education.
Gordon.
What I KNOW to be true is that you can't tell as MUCH as you think you can from a SINGLE STILL photograph.
Arthur
That is rather a bold statement. Perhaps you can tell me which fact is it, that I derived from that photograoh and posted on here which you would disagree with or say I have overstated or drawn a false inference or impression from or any other problem which you may have?
Gordon.
Arthur
That is rather a bold statement. Perhaps you can tell me which fact is it, that I derived from that photograoh and posted on here which you would disagree with or say I have overstated or drawn a false inference or impression from or any other problem which you may have?
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 12:55 AM)
I'm curious though, how do you know how far down it went into the pile to get that piece of steel?
well you know the maximum distance it could reach was the length of the arm of the excavator as it clutched the straw coloured steel.
Gordon
Since the debris was a few stories above ground and even more below ground where was the excavator?
well you know the maximum distance it could reach was the length of the arm of the excavator as it clutched the straw coloured steel.
Gordon
Since the debris was a few stories above ground and even more below ground where was the excavator?
Let me guess, they murdered Iskander to prop up the Atta passport story?
Arthur
Who are "they"?
Deep down, you know, don't you.
Gordon
Arthur
Who are "they"?
Deep down, you know, don't you.
Gordon
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 01:15 AM)
So maybe tomorrow at work I will get some rolled up newspaper and some bits of wood and old plastic, throw them in a bucket with a liberal splashing of diesel, then set it alight.
Then I'll do the same but also throw in loads more sand or a dry concrete mix maybe, and crushed up plaster-board, stick in a few pieces of steel and see what happens.
I'll see if I can find a few bits of aluminium as well, but I don't want a thermite reaction so I better be careful.
Or maybe I won't and just use my basic intuition and scientific education.
Gordon.
No you're not. There is a more scientific way to handle this. Admit you can't be absolutely certain it couldn't have reached those temps.
Then I'll do the same but also throw in loads more sand or a dry concrete mix maybe, and crushed up plaster-board, stick in a few pieces of steel and see what happens.
I'll see if I can find a few bits of aluminium as well, but I don't want a thermite reaction so I better be careful.
Or maybe I won't and just use my basic intuition and scientific education.
Gordon.
No you're not. There is a more scientific way to handle this. Admit you can't be absolutely certain it couldn't have reached those temps.
Since the debris was a few stories above ground and even more below ground where was the excavator?
In the photograph, at one end of the unbelievably hot steel.
Gordon.
In the photograph, at one end of the unbelievably hot steel.
Gordon.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 20 2006, 10:02 PM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 21 2006, 05:29 AM)
Speculation Central
Thermite has an indefinite shelf life.
WTC workers, spaying on fire insulation, could have been (unknowingly?) applying a look-a-like thermite coating.
Could thermite impregnated drywall, have been installed against CRITICAL sections of the core's super structure?
If aerosol nozzles were installed in the ceilings of the elevators shafts, could the dispensation of a thermo-baric mist, then have been ignited when it reached the bottom?
Thermo-baric heat blast, could have been used to ignite the Thermite.
"Official" jet fuel drip theory, a pre-emptive distraction from the actual application of fuel-air blasts?
Hi Zoktober!
As Foxx has recently provided a perfect description of what would have happened in the jet-fuel-in-air scenario down the shafts (see my previous two posts in reply to Computer Fogie), why go looking for exotic scenarios when all the 'elements' are there to satisfy OCCAM'S RAZOR?
Foxx described a 'device' which would initially explode and spread a lot of UNBURNT fuel into the surroundings to mix with air and THEN have that ignite as a consequence of the expanding explosion flame/shock front. JUST as happened on 9/11, where THERE the 'device' was a crashing/exploding plane full of fuel, much of which was dispersed and forced into the shaft to mix with air and then be ignited/exploded by the following blast front from the initial explosion on the impact floors.
No need to go looking. Foxx has just identified the explosive 'device' and 'system' that occurred NATURALLY by accident in the towers. And if you want proof that such 'unusual' things DO happen, just look up "OKLO natural reactors" to see that 'complicated' natural/accidental 'coincidences' are NOT IMPOSSIBLE by any means.
Cheers.
RC.
.
Quote RC
That post to Zoctoberfest was a little tongue in cheek, of course; prompted by the irony that it was SCHNEIBSTER, ADOUCETTE, MYSELF and OTHERS who posited/described the 'hyperbaric' and 'fuel-air' principles on which such 'weapons' depend for their effects; and how those 'principles' and all the 'fuel-air' and 'dispersal' elements/mechanisms were present naturally/accidently in the towers once the planes impacted.
RC,
Your post to me, did not address, my post. It addressed Foxx's post(s) and his theory. I also contend that a heat blast, would reach into the very crevices of the infrastructure. The high temperature/pressure although powerful, is of a momentary nature, which ends. My theory, as highly speculative as it is, suggests that a bigger mechanism would then begin.
IMHO, more attention needs to be directed toward maintenance activities concerning upgrades and modifications, around and about, to vulnerable support structures.
The jet fuel theory was a reactionary mechanism invoked, to address the Rodriguez accounts and explain the smoke emanating from the base of the building.
A post can generate 1 of 3 responses. Agreement, disagreement or indifference. You created a 4th. Impersonal deference.
Thermite has an indefinite shelf life.
WTC workers, spaying on fire insulation, could have been (unknowingly?) applying a look-a-like thermite coating.
Could thermite impregnated drywall, have been installed against CRITICAL sections of the core's super structure?
If aerosol nozzles were installed in the ceilings of the elevators shafts, could the dispensation of a thermo-baric mist, then have been ignited when it reached the bottom?
Thermo-baric heat blast, could have been used to ignite the Thermite.
"Official" jet fuel drip theory, a pre-emptive distraction from the actual application of fuel-air blasts?
Hi Zoktober!
As Foxx has recently provided a perfect description of what would have happened in the jet-fuel-in-air scenario down the shafts (see my previous two posts in reply to Computer Fogie), why go looking for exotic scenarios when all the 'elements' are there to satisfy OCCAM'S RAZOR?
Foxx described a 'device' which would initially explode and spread a lot of UNBURNT fuel into the surroundings to mix with air and THEN have that ignite as a consequence of the expanding explosion flame/shock front. JUST as happened on 9/11, where THERE the 'device' was a crashing/exploding plane full of fuel, much of which was dispersed and forced into the shaft to mix with air and then be ignited/exploded by the following blast front from the initial explosion on the impact floors.
No need to go looking. Foxx has just identified the explosive 'device' and 'system' that occurred NATURALLY by accident in the towers. And if you want proof that such 'unusual' things DO happen, just look up "OKLO natural reactors" to see that 'complicated' natural/accidental 'coincidences' are NOT IMPOSSIBLE by any means.
Cheers.
RC.
.
Quote RC
That post to Zoctoberfest was a little tongue in cheek, of course; prompted by the irony that it was SCHNEIBSTER, ADOUCETTE, MYSELF and OTHERS who posited/described the 'hyperbaric' and 'fuel-air' principles on which such 'weapons' depend for their effects; and how those 'principles' and all the 'fuel-air' and 'dispersal' elements/mechanisms were present naturally/accidently in the towers once the planes impacted.
RC,
Your post to me, did not address, my post. It addressed Foxx's post(s) and his theory. I also contend that a heat blast, would reach into the very crevices of the infrastructure. The high temperature/pressure although powerful, is of a momentary nature, which ends. My theory, as highly speculative as it is, suggests that a bigger mechanism would then begin.
IMHO, more attention needs to be directed toward maintenance activities concerning upgrades and modifications, around and about, to vulnerable support structures.
The jet fuel theory was a reactionary mechanism invoked, to address the Rodriguez accounts and explain the smoke emanating from the base of the building.
A post can generate 1 of 3 responses. Agreement, disagreement or indifference. You created a 4th. Impersonal deference.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 01:15 AM)
So maybe tomorrow at work I will get some rolled up newspaper and some bits of wood and old plastic, through them in a bucket with a liberal splashing of diesel, then set it alight.
Then I'll do the same but also throw in loads more sand or a dry concrete mix maybe, and crushed up plaster-board, stick in a few pieces of steel and see what happens.
I'll see if I can find a few bits of aluminium as well, but I don't want a thermite reaction so I better be careful.
Or maybe I won't and just use my basic intuition and scientific education.
Gordon.
Hi gordon!
You forget the 'scaling' laws and the 'increased probabilities' for INhomogenous distribution of materials which a VASTLY greater 'pile' will involve. You also fail to acknowledge that the 'dust insulation' and 'thermal mass' was not only vaster and therefore more 'retentive' overall and in 'hot spots', but was also effectively PREHEATED. So you would have to ALSO heat up and insulate your 'bucket' to reflect the 'retention' capability' for ITS share of gravitational energy (equivalent to a small thermonuclear device) AND subsequent fires. And don't forget to make much of those bits of steel HOLLOW TUBES, as well as VERY HOT...along with the sand etc. (which of course would have to reflect the 'proportions' of fuel to inert and POSITION/DISTRIBUTION. Then ALSO allow for BOTTOM AS WELL AS SIDE INGRESS OF AIR which such a 'multi-storey' pile would in reality and scale have allowed (remember, it was still settling weeks later).
There are so many things which you are obviously INTENT on NOT considering. Why is that? I would not expect such intentional 'omissions' from one who sounds proud of his "...basic intuition and scientific education."
Cheers!
RC.
.
Then I'll do the same but also throw in loads more sand or a dry concrete mix maybe, and crushed up plaster-board, stick in a few pieces of steel and see what happens.
I'll see if I can find a few bits of aluminium as well, but I don't want a thermite reaction so I better be careful.
Or maybe I won't and just use my basic intuition and scientific education.
Gordon.
Hi gordon!
You forget the 'scaling' laws and the 'increased probabilities' for INhomogenous distribution of materials which a VASTLY greater 'pile' will involve. You also fail to acknowledge that the 'dust insulation' and 'thermal mass' was not only vaster and therefore more 'retentive' overall and in 'hot spots', but was also effectively PREHEATED. So you would have to ALSO heat up and insulate your 'bucket' to reflect the 'retention' capability' for ITS share of gravitational energy (equivalent to a small thermonuclear device) AND subsequent fires. And don't forget to make much of those bits of steel HOLLOW TUBES, as well as VERY HOT...along with the sand etc. (which of course would have to reflect the 'proportions' of fuel to inert and POSITION/DISTRIBUTION. Then ALSO allow for BOTTOM AS WELL AS SIDE INGRESS OF AIR which such a 'multi-storey' pile would in reality and scale have allowed (remember, it was still settling weeks later).
There are so many things which you are obviously INTENT on NOT considering. Why is that? I would not expect such intentional 'omissions' from one who sounds proud of his "...basic intuition and scientific education."
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 01:32 AM)
Since the debris was a few stories above ground and even more below ground where was the excavator?
In the photograph, at one end of the unbelievably hot steel.
Gordon.
Where was you're science education again?
In the photograph, at one end of the unbelievably hot steel.
Gordon.
Where was you're science education again?
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 01:28 AM)
Let me guess, they murdered Iskander to prop up the Atta passport story?
Arthur
Who are "they"?
Deep down, you know, don't you.
Gordon
Honestly gordon,
Does that sound like the 'open mind' of a scientist who is proud of his "...basic intuition and scientific education"? Or the mind of a CTer? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt even during your 'one-dimensional' approach to the physics. But really, how can one respect such apparent preconceived minds as 'scientific'? Perhaps this explains why you appear so determined to 'omit' factors which would detract from the more 'exotic explanations'. I'll leave others to decide for themselves.
RC.
.
Arthur
Who are "they"?
Deep down, you know, don't you.
Gordon
Honestly gordon,
Does that sound like the 'open mind' of a scientist who is proud of his "...basic intuition and scientific education"? Or the mind of a CTer? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt even during your 'one-dimensional' approach to the physics. But really, how can one respect such apparent preconceived minds as 'scientific'? Perhaps this explains why you appear so determined to 'omit' factors which would detract from the more 'exotic explanations'. I'll leave others to decide for themselves.
RC.
.
Where was you're science education again?
At a different place from yours in grammar.
Gordon
At a different place from yours in grammar.
Gordon
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 01:44 AM)
Where was you're science education again?
At a different place from yours in grammar.
Gordon
I didn't say I had an education in grammar. You said you had an education in science. Or was it a basic education and scientific intuition?
At a different place from yours in grammar.
Gordon
I didn't say I had an education in grammar. You said you had an education in science. Or was it a basic education and scientific intuition?
RC perhaps you would like to quantify the extent of the preheating which would occur due to the fall through gravity.
I'm guessing that the temperature rise of a piece of material falling from the towers assuming that all potential energy is converted to heat would be, and this is dependent on only a few factors, less than 5 C, and if you wanted to achieve the temperature rise that was evident in the steel, using this method, you would have to drop it about 50km.
Gordon
I'm guessing that the temperature rise of a piece of material falling from the towers assuming that all potential energy is converted to heat would be, and this is dependent on only a few factors, less than 5 C, and if you wanted to achieve the temperature rise that was evident in the steel, using this method, you would have to drop it about 50km.
Gordon
You said you had an education in science. Or was it a basic education and scientific intuition?
Either would suffice for such basic levels of understanding
G.
Either would suffice for such basic levels of understanding
G.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 22 2006, 01:35 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 20 2006, 10:02 PM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 21 2006, 05:29 AM)
Speculation Central
Thermite has an indefinite shelf life.
WTC workers, spaying on fire insulation, could have been (unknowingly?) applying a look-a-like thermite coating.
Could thermite impregnated drywall, have been installed against CRITICAL sections of the core's super structure?
If aerosol nozzles were installed in the ceilings of the elevators shafts, could the dispensation of a thermo-baric mist, then have been ignited when it reached the bottom?
Thermo-baric heat blast, could have been used to ignite the Thermite.
"Official" jet fuel drip theory, a pre-emptive distraction from the actual application of fuel-air blasts?
Hi Zoktober!
As Foxx has recently provided a perfect description of what would have happened in the jet-fuel-in-air scenario down the shafts (see my previous two posts in reply to Computer Fogie), why go looking for exotic scenarios when all the 'elements' are there to satisfy OCCAM'S RAZOR?
Foxx described a 'device' which would initially explode and spread a lot of UNBURNT fuel into the surroundings to mix with air and THEN have that ignite as a consequence of the expanding explosion flame/shock front. JUST as happened on 9/11, where THERE the 'device' was a crashing/exploding plane full of fuel, much of which was dispersed and forced into the shaft to mix with air and then be ignited/exploded by the following blast front from the initial explosion on the impact floors.
No need to go looking. Foxx has just identified the explosive 'device' and 'system' that occurred NATURALLY by accident in the towers. And if you want proof that such 'unusual' things DO happen, just look up "OKLO natural reactors" to see that 'complicated' natural/accidental 'coincidences' are NOT IMPOSSIBLE by any means.
Cheers.
RC.
.
Quote RC
That post to Zoctoberfest was a little tongue in cheek, of course; prompted by the irony that it was SCHNEIBSTER, ADOUCETTE, MYSELF and OTHERS who posited/described the 'hyperbaric' and 'fuel-air' principles on which such 'weapons' depend for their effects; and how those 'principles' and all the 'fuel-air' and 'dispersal' elements/mechanisms were present naturally/accidently in the towers once the planes impacted.
RC,
Your post to me, did not address, my post. It addressed Foxx's post(s) and his theory. I also contend that a heat blast, would reach into the very crevices of the infrastructure. The high temperature/pressure although powerful, is of a momentary nature, which ends. My theory, as highly speculative as it is, suggests that a bigger mechanism would then begin.
IMHO, more attention needs to be directed toward maintenance activities concerning upgrades and modifications, around and about, to vulnerable support structures.
The jet fuel theory was a reactionary mechanism invoked, to address the Rodriguez accounts and explain the smoke emanating from the base of the building.
A post can generate 1 of 3 responses. Agreement, disagreement or indifference. You created a 4th. Impersonal deference.
Hi again, zoktober!
IIRC, adoucette answered your 'impregnated drywall' etc concerns.
My post merely used a previous response to COMPUTER FOGIE (and indirectly to Foxx) to point out that ALL THE PRINCIPLES AND ELEMENTS to create the NORMAL AND READILY OBSERVED 'initial explosion driven' fuel-air, flame and blast fronts EFFECTS along ANY opened shafts available (exactly in the same manner that such effects were APPARENT when driven out the windows, WHICH CANNOT BE DENIED) were actually present and sufficient to the explanation already presented.
That being so, there was NO NEED to look further (as I said), because what happened was perfectly in accordance with the principles and mechanisms more recently described by Foxx himself, and which were obviously PRESENT in the towers at impact.
So that makes any of your or others' 'exotic' scenarios MOOT.....since Occam's Razor does not require such further (and in the event, unnecessary/improbable) 'explanations'....as confirmed by Foxx himself with his description of JUST the mechanisms and principles that WERE present.
That's why I had no further need to comment on your own hypotheses, mate! Didn't mean to 'ignore' it; rather, I didn't want to spend time on unnecessary and eventually probably fruitless SPECULATION, in preference for the plausible physics in this analysis/discussion.
No offence intended, mate! Whatever the pros/cons of your scenario, I just didn't feel it required further consideration on my part. Thanks anyway for your reply. Cheers!
RC.
.
Thermite has an indefinite shelf life.
WTC workers, spaying on fire insulation, could have been (unknowingly?) applying a look-a-like thermite coating.
Could thermite impregnated drywall, have been installed against CRITICAL sections of the core's super structure?
If aerosol nozzles were installed in the ceilings of the elevators shafts, could the dispensation of a thermo-baric mist, then have been ignited when it reached the bottom?
Thermo-baric heat blast, could have been used to ignite the Thermite.
"Official" jet fuel drip theory, a pre-emptive distraction from the actual application of fuel-air blasts?
Hi Zoktober!
As Foxx has recently provided a perfect description of what would have happened in the jet-fuel-in-air scenario down the shafts (see my previous two posts in reply to Computer Fogie), why go looking for exotic scenarios when all the 'elements' are there to satisfy OCCAM'S RAZOR?
Foxx described a 'device' which would initially explode and spread a lot of UNBURNT fuel into the surroundings to mix with air and THEN have that ignite as a consequence of the expanding explosion flame/shock front. JUST as happened on 9/11, where THERE the 'device' was a crashing/exploding plane full of fuel, much of which was dispersed and forced into the shaft to mix with air and then be ignited/exploded by the following blast front from the initial explosion on the impact floors.
No need to go looking. Foxx has just identified the explosive 'device' and 'system' that occurred NATURALLY by accident in the towers. And if you want proof that such 'unusual' things DO happen, just look up "OKLO natural reactors" to see that 'complicated' natural/accidental 'coincidences' are NOT IMPOSSIBLE by any means.
Cheers.
RC.
.
Quote RC
That post to Zoctoberfest was a little tongue in cheek, of course; prompted by the irony that it was SCHNEIBSTER, ADOUCETTE, MYSELF and OTHERS who posited/described the 'hyperbaric' and 'fuel-air' principles on which such 'weapons' depend for their effects; and how those 'principles' and all the 'fuel-air' and 'dispersal' elements/mechanisms were present naturally/accidently in the towers once the planes impacted.
RC,
Your post to me, did not address, my post. It addressed Foxx's post(s) and his theory. I also contend that a heat blast, would reach into the very crevices of the infrastructure. The high temperature/pressure although powerful, is of a momentary nature, which ends. My theory, as highly speculative as it is, suggests that a bigger mechanism would then begin.
IMHO, more attention needs to be directed toward maintenance activities concerning upgrades and modifications, around and about, to vulnerable support structures.
The jet fuel theory was a reactionary mechanism invoked, to address the Rodriguez accounts and explain the smoke emanating from the base of the building.
A post can generate 1 of 3 responses. Agreement, disagreement or indifference. You created a 4th. Impersonal deference.
Hi again, zoktober!
IIRC, adoucette answered your 'impregnated drywall' etc concerns.
My post merely used a previous response to COMPUTER FOGIE (and indirectly to Foxx) to point out that ALL THE PRINCIPLES AND ELEMENTS to create the NORMAL AND READILY OBSERVED 'initial explosion driven' fuel-air, flame and blast fronts EFFECTS along ANY opened shafts available (exactly in the same manner that such effects were APPARENT when driven out the windows, WHICH CANNOT BE DENIED) were actually present and sufficient to the explanation already presented.
That being so, there was NO NEED to look further (as I said), because what happened was perfectly in accordance with the principles and mechanisms more recently described by Foxx himself, and which were obviously PRESENT in the towers at impact.
So that makes any of your or others' 'exotic' scenarios MOOT.....since Occam's Razor does not require such further (and in the event, unnecessary/improbable) 'explanations'....as confirmed by Foxx himself with his description of JUST the mechanisms and principles that WERE present.
That's why I had no further need to comment on your own hypotheses, mate! Didn't mean to 'ignore' it; rather, I didn't want to spend time on unnecessary and eventually probably fruitless SPECULATION, in preference for the plausible physics in this analysis/discussion.
No offence intended, mate! Whatever the pros/cons of your scenario, I just didn't feel it required further consideration on my part. Thanks anyway for your reply. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 01:57 AM)
You said you had an education in science. Or was it a basic education and scientific intuition?
Either would suffice for such basic levels of understanding
G.
Basic levels of understanding is all you need to expose CT pseudoscience.
Either would suffice for such basic levels of understanding
G.
Basic levels of understanding is all you need to expose CT pseudoscience.
Basic levels of understanding is all you need to expose CT pseudoscience
The real science, however, seems to be proving rather more difficult for you.
Gordon.
The real science, however, seems to be proving rather more difficult for you.
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 02:11 AM)
Basic levels of understanding is all you need to expose CT pseudoscience
The real science, however, seems to be proving rather more difficult for you.
Gordon.
As for you. We seem to have something in common.
The real science, however, seems to be proving rather more difficult for you.
Gordon.
As for you. We seem to have something in common.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 01:53 AM)
RC perhaps you would like to quantify the extent of the preheating which would occur due to the fall through gravity.
I'm guessing that the temperature rise of a piece of material falling from the towers assuming that all potential energy is converted to heat would be, and this is dependent on only a few factors, less than 5 C, and if you wanted to achieve the temperature rise that was evident in the steel, using this method, you would have to drop it about 50km.
Gordon
Hi gordon!
Careful, there's that 'one-dimensional' thinking again. The energy will be NOT 'distributed' homogeneously. You forget the impact/weight compression will be greater for material lower down in the multi-thousand tons of fast-moving debris upon 'contact'. The lower areas were obviously hotter than the upper. And any 'isolated'/'localised' higher compression/impact HEATING would have created hot spots where all the energy of, say a fast moving beam-end, was CONCENTRATED (the hyperdermic needle principle) onto a SMALL AREA (again, creating an even HOTTER 'hotspot'). And the upper section will have been 'preheated' by the fuel/office fires raging before collapse.
RC.
.
I'm guessing that the temperature rise of a piece of material falling from the towers assuming that all potential energy is converted to heat would be, and this is dependent on only a few factors, less than 5 C, and if you wanted to achieve the temperature rise that was evident in the steel, using this method, you would have to drop it about 50km.
Gordon
Hi gordon!
Careful, there's that 'one-dimensional' thinking again. The energy will be NOT 'distributed' homogeneously. You forget the impact/weight compression will be greater for material lower down in the multi-thousand tons of fast-moving debris upon 'contact'. The lower areas were obviously hotter than the upper. And any 'isolated'/'localised' higher compression/impact HEATING would have created hot spots where all the energy of, say a fast moving beam-end, was CONCENTRATED (the hyperdermic needle principle) onto a SMALL AREA (again, creating an even HOTTER 'hotspot'). And the upper section will have been 'preheated' by the fuel/office fires raging before collapse.
RC.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 21 2006, 09:24 PM)
What I KNOW to be true is that you can't tell as MUCH as you think you can from a SINGLE STILL photograph.
Arthur
That is rather a bold statement. Perhaps you can tell me which fact is it, that I derived from that photograoh and posted on here which you would disagree with or say I have overstated or drawn a false inference or impression from or any other problem which you may have?
Gordon.
Gordon you said:
That the "steel was clearly the hottest material evidenced there, then it was the source of heat to its surroundings and not vice versa."
This implies knowing from a STILL picture where the steel came from. While you might THINK it came from a foot below where it is in the picture at this moment, you really have NO IDEA where it actually originated from.
As to the pile you said:
That the fires were "Oxygen Starved" and that the pile was "Compacted"
Hard to believe when we have a FIREMAN on site saying they were like ROARING OVENS 6 weeks after 9/11 and estimated their temps at 1,500 degrees (I presume Farenheight).
Arthur
Arthur
That is rather a bold statement. Perhaps you can tell me which fact is it, that I derived from that photograoh and posted on here which you would disagree with or say I have overstated or drawn a false inference or impression from or any other problem which you may have?
Gordon.
Gordon you said:
That the "steel was clearly the hottest material evidenced there, then it was the source of heat to its surroundings and not vice versa."
This implies knowing from a STILL picture where the steel came from. While you might THINK it came from a foot below where it is in the picture at this moment, you really have NO IDEA where it actually originated from.
As to the pile you said:
That the fires were "Oxygen Starved" and that the pile was "Compacted"
Hard to believe when we have a FIREMAN on site saying they were like ROARING OVENS 6 weeks after 9/11 and estimated their temps at 1,500 degrees (I presume Farenheight).
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 02:22 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 21 2006, 09:24 PM)
What I KNOW to be true is that you can't tell as MUCH as you think you can from a SINGLE STILL photograph.
Arthur
That is rather a bold statement. Perhaps you can tell me which fact is it, that I derived from that photograoh and posted on here which you would disagree with or say I have overstated or drawn a false inference or impression from or any other problem which you may have?
Gordon.
Gordon you said:
That the "steel was clearly the hottest material evidenced there, then it was the source of heat to its surroundings and not vice versa."
This implies knowing from a STILL picture where the steel came from. While you might THINK it came from a foot below where it is in the picture at this moment, you really have NO IDEA where it actually originated from.
As to the pile you said:
That the fires were "Oxygen Starved" and that the pile was "Compacted"
Hard to believe when we have a FIREMAN on site saying they were like ROARING OVENS 6 weeks after 9/11 and estimated their temps at 1,500 degrees (I presume Farenheight).
Arthur
Hes a scientist. He can not only tell where it came from and how hot it was from the picture but your horoscope as well.
I don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the roads must have been created on top of the rubble as they worked. Most likely using the rubble itself though that's just speculation. Photos of the debris pile at different stages are evidence. I think it's safe to say the buildings didn't fall with roads already created.
I don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the roads must have been created on top of the rubble as they worked. Most likely using the rubble itself though that's just speculation. Photos of the debris pile at different stages are evidence. I think it's safe to say the buildings didn't fall with roads already created.
Strange how this fireman is considered absolutely correct to the point of having his estimates accepted, whereas the many other firefighters and other witnesses, have their testimony dismissed.
What are you talking about. No one is saying the fireman aren't absolutely correct in any of their statements.
You are dismissing the possibilities given to you because you don't like what it implies. If the hot steel is made naturally you have one less piece to support CD. Your quest for science is a joke.
Arthur
That is rather a bold statement. Perhaps you can tell me which fact is it, that I derived from that photograoh and posted on here which you would disagree with or say I have overstated or drawn a false inference or impression from or any other problem which you may have?
Gordon.
Gordon you said:
That the "steel was clearly the hottest material evidenced there, then it was the source of heat to its surroundings and not vice versa."
This implies knowing from a STILL picture where the steel came from. While you might THINK it came from a foot below where it is in the picture at this moment, you really have NO IDEA where it actually originated from.
As to the pile you said:
That the fires were "Oxygen Starved" and that the pile was "Compacted"
Hard to believe when we have a FIREMAN on site saying they were like ROARING OVENS 6 weeks after 9/11 and estimated their temps at 1,500 degrees (I presume Farenheight).
Arthur
Hes a scientist. He can not only tell where it came from and how hot it was from the picture but your horoscope as well.
Well if they weren't compacted due to their own mass of several thousand tonnes, maybe it was because of all the trucks running over the top of the pile while also pumping air in. Although if it wasn't compacted to some extent how would they be able to run over them?
Strange how this fireman is considered absolutely correct to the point of having his estimates accepted, whereas the many other firefighters and other witnesses, have their testimony dismissed. I'm not disputing that it was hot, what I am disputing is that the cause of the elevated temperatures in the steel are explained by the aircraft impact, consequent and subsequent fires, and the tower collapse.
Among other things
G
Strange how this fireman is considered absolutely correct to the point of having his estimates accepted, whereas the many other firefighters and other witnesses, have their testimony dismissed. I'm not disputing that it was hot, what I am disputing is that the cause of the elevated temperatures in the steel are explained by the aircraft impact, consequent and subsequent fires, and the tower collapse.
Among other things
G
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 02:55 AM)
Well if they weren't compacted due to their own mass of several thousand tonnes, maybe it was because of all the trucks running over the top of the pile while also pumping air in. Although if it wasn't compacted to some extent how would they be able to run over them?
Strange how this fireman is considered absolutely correct to the point of having his estimates accepted, whereas the many other firefighters and other witnesses, have their testimony dismissed. I'm not disputing that it was hot, what I am disputing is that the cause of the elevated temperatures in the steel are explained by the aircraft impact, consequent and subsequent fires, and the tower collapse.
Among other things
G
Hi gordon.
How does a bridge work? It 'bridges' between two points to leave a gap below it between those two points. How many such 'small bridges' would a jumbled pile of beam and box column segments provide amongst the chaotic distribution in the pile? Why is it that you need the OBVIOUS pointed out after you intentionally imply that the obvious is not there? Is this how you proceed with ANY analysis elsewhere, apart from WTC events?
And further 'aeration by disturbance' is EXACTLY what one does when a grate fire has 'gone down' and needs to be 'revived' by the POKER shaking the embers up a bit, heh?
RC.
.
Strange how this fireman is considered absolutely correct to the point of having his estimates accepted, whereas the many other firefighters and other witnesses, have their testimony dismissed. I'm not disputing that it was hot, what I am disputing is that the cause of the elevated temperatures in the steel are explained by the aircraft impact, consequent and subsequent fires, and the tower collapse.
Among other things
G
Hi gordon.
How does a bridge work? It 'bridges' between two points to leave a gap below it between those two points. How many such 'small bridges' would a jumbled pile of beam and box column segments provide amongst the chaotic distribution in the pile? Why is it that you need the OBVIOUS pointed out after you intentionally imply that the obvious is not there? Is this how you proceed with ANY analysis elsewhere, apart from WTC events?
And further 'aeration by disturbance' is EXACTLY what one does when a grate fire has 'gone down' and needs to be 'revived' by the POKER shaking the embers up a bit, heh?
RC.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 21 2006, 10:55 PM)
Well if they weren't compacted due to their own mass of several thousand tonnes, maybe it was because of all the trucks running over the top of the pile while also pumping air in. Although if it wasn't compacted to some extent how would they be able to run over them?
Strange how this fireman is considered absolutely correct to the point of having his estimates accepted, whereas the many other firefighters and other witnesses, have their testimony dismissed. I'm not disputing that it was hot, what I am disputing is that the cause of the elevated temperatures in the steel are explained by the aircraft impact, consequent and subsequent fires, and the tower collapse.
Among other things
G
Well because steel box columns don't compact, and you can run over them because each set of triple perimeter columns weighs from 7 to 20 tons. And there's almost 10 thousand of them in the pile. Then there's the core columns 47 X 110 stories worth from each tower. Now all of these are HOLLOW and many of them are open at both ends. Then there's the 220 acres of floor trusses. 200 elevators and 200 elevator shafts. Then there is aprox. 20 million lbs of STUFF mixed in. most of it burnable.
But you dispute that the material that we KNOW can burn at temps OVER 1,000 C can't burn that hot in the pile?
Based on what????
Why should we believe THIS firefighter vs the other witnesses, well the others I assume you are referring to are the ones who "heard (what they thought were) explosions" or "saw flashes (that they thought might have come from explosions)" but NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY SAW an explosion.
But THIS firefighter is not running for his life, he's not seeing things from a distance and trying to make sense of it. He's calmly surveying the same scene he's seen every friggin day for SIX weeks.
That's why.
Arthur
. .
Strange how this fireman is considered absolutely correct to the point of having his estimates accepted, whereas the many other firefighters and other witnesses, have their testimony dismissed. I'm not disputing that it was hot, what I am disputing is that the cause of the elevated temperatures in the steel are explained by the aircraft impact, consequent and subsequent fires, and the tower collapse.
Among other things
G
Well because steel box columns don't compact, and you can run over them because each set of triple perimeter columns weighs from 7 to 20 tons. And there's almost 10 thousand of them in the pile. Then there's the core columns 47 X 110 stories worth from each tower. Now all of these are HOLLOW and many of them are open at both ends. Then there's the 220 acres of floor trusses. 200 elevators and 200 elevator shafts. Then there is aprox. 20 million lbs of STUFF mixed in. most of it burnable.
But you dispute that the material that we KNOW can burn at temps OVER 1,000 C can't burn that hot in the pile?
Based on what????
Why should we believe THIS firefighter vs the other witnesses, well the others I assume you are referring to are the ones who "heard (what they thought were) explosions" or "saw flashes (that they thought might have come from explosions)" but NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY SAW an explosion.
But THIS firefighter is not running for his life, he's not seeing things from a distance and trying to make sense of it. He's calmly surveying the same scene he's seen every friggin day for SIX weeks.
That's why.
Arthur
. .
QUOTE
Well if they weren't compacted due to their own mass of several thousand tonnes, maybe it was because of all the trucks running over the top of the pile while also pumping air in. Although if it wasn't compacted to some extent how would they be able to run over them?
I don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the roads must have been created on top of the rubble as they worked. Most likely using the rubble itself though that's just speculation. Photos of the debris pile at different stages are evidence. I think it's safe to say the buildings didn't fall with roads already created.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well if they weren't compacted due to their own mass of several thousand tonnes, maybe it was because of all the trucks running over the top of the pile while also pumping air in. Although if it wasn't compacted to some extent how would they be able to run over them? |
I don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the roads must have been created on top of the rubble as they worked. Most likely using the rubble itself though that's just speculation. Photos of the debris pile at different stages are evidence. I think it's safe to say the buildings didn't fall with roads already created.
Strange how this fireman is considered absolutely correct to the point of having his estimates accepted, whereas the many other firefighters and other witnesses, have their testimony dismissed.
What are you talking about. No one is saying the fireman aren't absolutely correct in any of their statements.
QUOTE
I'm not disputing that it was hot, what I am disputing is that the cause of the elevated temperatures in the steel are explained by the aircraft impact, consequent and subsequent fires, and the tower collapse.
Among other things
Among other things
You are dismissing the possibilities given to you because you don't like what it implies. If the hot steel is made naturally you have one less piece to support CD. Your quest for science is a joke.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 21 2006, 12:00 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 21 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 20 2006, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE (newton+)
bush's grandfather financed nazis.
Bush's Grandfather must have been a real A$$hole, since here is his son, Bush's father, Lt George Bush, prior to being SHOT DOWN while dive bombing a Japanese carrier. Note: Japan and Germany were on the same side in the war.
Arthur
You will go to any extent to distort the truth. Even The Guardian admits it is true:
How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president
Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
Saturday September 25, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
EVEN THE GUARDIAN ADMITS ITS TRUE.
From the article:
There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery.
One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.
UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war.
The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."
Arthur
I guess it does not matter if you are committing a crime as long as you admit you were only holding the stock for the enemy and did not really own them.
I guess it does not matter if you are committing a crime as long as you admit you were only holding the stock for the enemy and did not really own them.
There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.
If you break the law and are not punished or prosecuted, according to Arthur, it must be legal. You do fit right in with the current administration.
Reference to Arthur being a banker removed
(This has nothing to do with the WTC thread so I will stop posting about Prescott Bush)
I agree with you in regards to the collapse beginning at the core. There is no other way for the buildings to collapse the way they did. When you consider the distribution of the vertical loads via the hat truss, there is no other way for the entire upper portion of the building to come down, unless the entire core gives.
This still does not explain the straight down collapse, with the core falling vertically through itself. It should have toppled, as has been pointed out many times before.
I have yet to see any evidence of a collapsing inner section dozens of floors ahead. If you have such evidence, please point me to it.
Bush's Grandfather must have been a real A$$hole, since here is his son, Bush's father, Lt George Bush, prior to being SHOT DOWN while dive bombing a Japanese carrier. Note: Japan and Germany were on the same side in the war.
Arthur
You will go to any extent to distort the truth. Even The Guardian admits it is true:
How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president
Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
Saturday September 25, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
EVEN THE GUARDIAN ADMITS ITS TRUE.
From the article:
There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery.
One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.
UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war.
The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."
Arthur
QUOTE
What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.
I guess it does not matter if you are committing a crime as long as you admit you were only holding the stock for the enemy and did not really own them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized. |
I guess it does not matter if you are committing a crime as long as you admit you were only holding the stock for the enemy and did not really own them.
There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.
If you break the law and are not punished or prosecuted, according to Arthur, it must be legal. You do fit right in with the current administration.
QUOTE
Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets. Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush's name, and wrote: "Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC," according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.
Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.
Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.
Reference to Arthur being a banker removed
(This has nothing to do with the WTC thread so I will stop posting about Prescott Bush)
I hate to break it to you, but I'm not a banker.
I design computer systems that are sold to banks to facilitate their electronic payments, ATM payments, direct deposits, branch deposits and image based payment systems.
As such my knowledge of banking is pretty narrow and almost totally around payment processing.
Thus its taken a while to digest all of this.
Here's my take on it.
Reading up on the Trading with Enemies Act and the role of the Alien Property Custodian , it would appear that everything they did was legal and the APC is how we dealt with companies that were in business with the enemy once we declared war. I hadn't really thought about it, but it makes sense to have this type of arrangement. For instance, prior to us declaring war on Germany, there was no reason a Bank couldn't (or shouldn't) deal with German companies (or individuals) and their financial transactions. But ONCE war was declared, one couldn't even SELL one's stake, since that would entail profiting. Thus the APC gets involved and "seizes" the property for the duration. Had they been breaking the law the property would not be seized, it would have been FORFEITED.
However it is not possible for an agency like APC to instantly seize every piece of property, thus the slight delay until they got to Harriman's bank.
The fact that they were COOPERATING with the TwE act and the APC is evidenced by the fact that apparently NO FINES (or prosecution) was imposed upon the principals and no assets were forfeited.
That's important because the law had TEETH.
Sec. 16. Offenses; punishment; forfeitures of property
(a) Whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of the Act shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $ 1,000,000, or if a natural person, be fined not more than $ 100,000, or imprisoned for not more than ten years or both; and the officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $ 100,000 or imprisoned for not more than ten years or both.
(
(1) A civil penalty of not to exceed $ 50,000 may be imposed by the Secretary of the Treasury on any person who violates any license, order, rule, or regulation issued in compliance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) Any property, funds, securities, papers, or other articles or documents, or any vessel, together with its tackle, apparel, furniture, and equipment, that is the subject of a violation under paragraph (1) shall, at the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, be forfeited to the United States Government.
Now in HINDSIGHT, any dealing with the Nazis was ultimately short sighted, but banks in the 30s would not be overly political (my take, could be naive) although one would think by the 40s that the Nazi ideology would be fairly well known. But, I wasn't around then and so its just speculation on my part. I do think that it is easy to play the HITLER card, based on what we know NOW, as if that is the same as what was known then. In any case, none of these people were fined or prosecuted, so my guess is they weren't 'providing aid and comfort to the enemy', which is why after the war was over they got their assets back.
Arthur
I design computer systems that are sold to banks to facilitate their electronic payments, ATM payments, direct deposits, branch deposits and image based payment systems.
As such my knowledge of banking is pretty narrow and almost totally around payment processing.
Thus its taken a while to digest all of this.
Here's my take on it.
Reading up on the Trading with Enemies Act and the role of the Alien Property Custodian , it would appear that everything they did was legal and the APC is how we dealt with companies that were in business with the enemy once we declared war. I hadn't really thought about it, but it makes sense to have this type of arrangement. For instance, prior to us declaring war on Germany, there was no reason a Bank couldn't (or shouldn't) deal with German companies (or individuals) and their financial transactions. But ONCE war was declared, one couldn't even SELL one's stake, since that would entail profiting. Thus the APC gets involved and "seizes" the property for the duration. Had they been breaking the law the property would not be seized, it would have been FORFEITED.
However it is not possible for an agency like APC to instantly seize every piece of property, thus the slight delay until they got to Harriman's bank.
The fact that they were COOPERATING with the TwE act and the APC is evidenced by the fact that apparently NO FINES (or prosecution) was imposed upon the principals and no assets were forfeited.
That's important because the law had TEETH.
Sec. 16. Offenses; punishment; forfeitures of property
(a) Whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of the Act shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $ 1,000,000, or if a natural person, be fined not more than $ 100,000, or imprisoned for not more than ten years or both; and the officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $ 100,000 or imprisoned for not more than ten years or both.
(
(1) A civil penalty of not to exceed $ 50,000 may be imposed by the Secretary of the Treasury on any person who violates any license, order, rule, or regulation issued in compliance with the provisions of this Act.(2) Any property, funds, securities, papers, or other articles or documents, or any vessel, together with its tackle, apparel, furniture, and equipment, that is the subject of a violation under paragraph (1) shall, at the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, be forfeited to the United States Government.
Now in HINDSIGHT, any dealing with the Nazis was ultimately short sighted, but banks in the 30s would not be overly political (my take, could be naive) although one would think by the 40s that the Nazi ideology would be fairly well known. But, I wasn't around then and so its just speculation on my part. I do think that it is easy to play the HITLER card, based on what we know NOW, as if that is the same as what was known then. In any case, none of these people were fined or prosecuted, so my guess is they weren't 'providing aid and comfort to the enemy', which is why after the war was over they got their assets back.
Arthur
The pic below of the squib looks mysterious at first sight. If you watch the north tower collapse, you'll notice that the antenna tower falls first, which was connected to the inner core. The inner core of the building was actually falling ahead of the perimeter. If you look at video and still photos carefully, you can actually follow the collapse of the core and floors by noting the fire that passes by the windows on the way down. The collapsing inner section appears to be as much as a dozen floors ahead of the collapsing perimeter. The squibs which appear a number of floors below the collapse of the perimeter are debris being ejected out of windows by the inner part collapsing ahead of the perimeter.
http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/image..._small_1056.jpg
I suspect the demolition advocates would claim that the fire seen though the windows on the way down are charges going off, but they aren't. It's simply the fire from the upper floors moving downward near freefall speeds.
http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/image..._small_1056.jpg
I suspect the demolition advocates would claim that the fire seen though the windows on the way down are charges going off, but they aren't. It's simply the fire from the upper floors moving downward near freefall speeds.
Interesting.
Certainly would like to see links to pictures and videos that support your view.
Arthur
Certainly would like to see links to pictures and videos that support your view.
Arthur
QUOTE
The pic below of the squib looks mysterious at first sight. If you watch the north tower collapse, you'll notice that the antenna tower falls first, which was connected to the inner core. The inner core of the building was actually falling ahead of the perimeter. If you look at video and still photos carefully, you can actually follow the collapse of the core and floors by noting the fire that passes by the windows on the way down. The collapsing inner section appears to be as much as a dozen floors ahead of the collapsing perimeter. The squibs which appear a number of floors below the collapse of the perimeter are debris being ejected out of windows by the inner part collapsing ahead of the perimeter.
http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/image..._small_1056.jpg
I suspect the demolition advocates would claim that the fire seen though the windows on the way down are charges going off, but they aren't. It's simply the fire from the upper floors moving downward near freefall speeds
http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/image..._small_1056.jpg
I suspect the demolition advocates would claim that the fire seen though the windows on the way down are charges going off, but they aren't. It's simply the fire from the upper floors moving downward near freefall speeds
I agree with you in regards to the collapse beginning at the core. There is no other way for the buildings to collapse the way they did. When you consider the distribution of the vertical loads via the hat truss, there is no other way for the entire upper portion of the building to come down, unless the entire core gives.
This still does not explain the straight down collapse, with the core falling vertically through itself. It should have toppled, as has been pointed out many times before.
I have yet to see any evidence of a collapsing inner section dozens of floors ahead. If you have such evidence, please point me to it.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 20 2006, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 20 2006, 11:12 PM)
QUOTE (computer fogie+Feb 20 2006, 09:53 PM)
After conidering the physical evidence (pics of ejected material exploding out a few windows of the WTC towers) and all the explanations for the evidence I've seen, I now believe the squibs were likely to have been caused by air, and not explosives. There's no sign of actual colapse in the areas of the squibs. CD wouldn't have sent matter out of only one or two windows.
This is to say that of the observable photographic records, this anomaly is no longer on my list of suspect phenomena.
Then it joins the 'pod planes' on the heap of discarded CD theories.
Good of you to say you can no longer accept this 'squib' theory.
no, you can't throw it away with the pod planes.
still looks like a misfired bomb to me. it didn't go at the right time, so it had no effect on the stability. all the squibs need to fire in unison in order to blow out support.
it is too pointed to be an air blast, unless there was a continuous duct directly adjacent the perimeter. if it was overpressure in the core ducting, the air would equalise when it hit the vast volume of air on that floor, and would not be able to retain it's 'shape' as it travelled from core to the perimeter.
I have a clip which shows a squib in WTC 2 appearing at least 50 stories below the collapse point, and before the main collapse sequence. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this. The squib appears just as the top section of the tower is beginning to tilt and fall, but before the appearance of the big dust/rubble cloud.
I will try to find a link for you.
(: hereward
This is to say that of the observable photographic records, this anomaly is no longer on my list of suspect phenomena.
Then it joins the 'pod planes' on the heap of discarded CD theories.
Good of you to say you can no longer accept this 'squib' theory.
no, you can't throw it away with the pod planes.
still looks like a misfired bomb to me. it didn't go at the right time, so it had no effect on the stability. all the squibs need to fire in unison in order to blow out support.
it is too pointed to be an air blast, unless there was a continuous duct directly adjacent the perimeter. if it was overpressure in the core ducting, the air would equalise when it hit the vast volume of air on that floor, and would not be able to retain it's 'shape' as it travelled from core to the perimeter.
I have a clip which shows a squib in WTC 2 appearing at least 50 stories below the collapse point, and before the main collapse sequence. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this. The squib appears just as the top section of the tower is beginning to tilt and fall, but before the appearance of the big dust/rubble cloud.
I will try to find a link for you.
(: hereward
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 22 2006, 06:31 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 20 2006, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 20 2006, 11:12 PM)
QUOTE (computer fogie+Feb 20 2006, 09:53 PM)
After conidering the physical evidence (pics of ejected material exploding out a few windows of the WTC towers) and all the explanations for the evidence I've seen, I now believe the squibs were likely to have been caused by air, and not explosives. There's no sign of actual colapse in the areas of the squibs. CD wouldn't have sent matter out of only one or two windows.
This is to say that of the observable photographic records, this anomaly is no longer on my list of suspect phenomena.
Then it joins the 'pod planes' on the heap of discarded CD theories.
Good of you to say you can no longer accept this 'squib' theory.
no, you can't throw it away with the pod planes.
still looks like a misfired bomb to me. it didn't go at the right time, so it had no effect on the stability. all the squibs need to fire in unison in order to blow out support.
it is too pointed to be an air blast, unless there was a continuous duct directly adjacent the perimeter. if it was overpressure in the core ducting, the air would equalise when it hit the vast volume of air on that floor, and would not be able to retain it's 'shape' as it travelled from core to the perimeter.
I have a clip which shows a squib in WTC 2 appearing at least 50 stories below the collapse point, and before the main collapse sequence. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this. The squib appears just as the top section of the tower is beginning to tilt and fall, but before the appearance of the big dust/rubble cloud.
I will try to find a link for you.
(: hereward
Please post a link to this
This is to say that of the observable photographic records, this anomaly is no longer on my list of suspect phenomena.
Then it joins the 'pod planes' on the heap of discarded CD theories.
Good of you to say you can no longer accept this 'squib' theory.
no, you can't throw it away with the pod planes.
still looks like a misfired bomb to me. it didn't go at the right time, so it had no effect on the stability. all the squibs need to fire in unison in order to blow out support.
it is too pointed to be an air blast, unless there was a continuous duct directly adjacent the perimeter. if it was overpressure in the core ducting, the air would equalise when it hit the vast volume of air on that floor, and would not be able to retain it's 'shape' as it travelled from core to the perimeter.
I have a clip which shows a squib in WTC 2 appearing at least 50 stories below the collapse point, and before the main collapse sequence. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this. The squib appears just as the top section of the tower is beginning to tilt and fall, but before the appearance of the big dust/rubble cloud.
I will try to find a link for you.
(: hereward
Please post a link to this
I see the disinformationists have been busy tossing about the 1000 C figure...
Please provide the quote from the NIST report which you feel supports the above statement.
I think you have fabricated the statement that NIST reports office furniture reaching 1,100 degrees C.
This is blatant disinformation. No where in the NIST report is such a statement made. Here, let me help you out a bit... isn't this the quote you are thinking of...
Please provide the quote from the NIST report which you feel supports the above statement.
I think you have fabricated the statement that NIST reports office furniture reaching 1,100 degrees C.
This is blatant disinformation. No where in the NIST report is such a statement made. Here, let me help you out a bit... isn't this the quote you are thinking of...
The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 125-6/175-6)
or this one...
The above quotes refer to air temperatures, NOT steel or office furnishing temperatures.
In December 2001, even Thomas Eagar (the pancaker) stated in an article in JOM...
The above quotes refer to air temperatures, NOT steel or office furnishing temperatures.
In December 2001, even Thomas Eagar (the pancaker) stated in an article in JOM...
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today {Dec 2001}, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.
Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material...
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.
In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.
In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.
Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types...
...the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range...
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
There seems to be some here promoting the idea that the steel within the towers reached 800 - 1000 C. NIST does NOT claim that --- they claim the air possibly (according to their highly tweaked models), reached these temperatures.
Corus Steel is an international that markets structural steel. This is how Corus describes the diminishing strength of steel in a fire...
http://web.archive.org/web/20030818132750/.../fire/fr006.htm
J. McMichael did an update to his original page and created Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics Part II. He states...
http://web.archive.org/web/20030818132750/.../fire/fr006.htm
J. McMichael did an update to his original page and created Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics Part II. He states...
Note that structural steel at 550 degrees C (1022 F) has 60% of the strength of steel at normal temperatures. This weakening of steel when heated is supposedly responsible for the catastrophic collapse of the towers. The statement generates three questions to be answered in order to determine whether this phenomenon could cause the collapse of the World Trade Center:
1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?
2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?
3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?
Question 1:
In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.
It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.
Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.
Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.
Question 2:
The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.
The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.
Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).
For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.
Question 3:
Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.
Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.
These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.
A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park ( http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm ) [this web page is now at http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_137.htm ].
Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."
Here is the relevant paragraph, complete: "Steel-framed car parks have been rigorously fire tested in a number of countries (Table 3). These tests demonstrate that most unprotected steel in open sided steel-framed car parks has sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur. Table 3 lists the maximum temperatures reached in open sided car park tests in four countries. These can be compared with the characteristic failure temperatures for beams carrying insulating floor slabs and columns of 620 [degrees] C and 550 [degrees] C respectively."
Note that the description does not limit the duration of the fire. From this it does not appear to matter whether the fire burned all week or just for two hours. No mention is made, as some people have suggested (from erroneous interpretation of other graphs involving time), that prolonged heat brings about progressive weakening of steel.
Here is the data from Corus' Table 3 (beams are horizontal members, columns are vertical):
<IMAGE>
A fire in a steel car park is a very imprecise event, and the heating of the steel supports varied widely in the tests. The temperature of (horizontal) beams varied from 226 C in the USA to 340 C in Australia; and the temperature of (vertical) columns varied from 242 C in Japan to 360 C in the UK. None of the steel was protected with the thermal insulation that is commonly used in office buildings, including the WTC.
To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F).
Some may argue that there was much more fuel involved in the WTC events that in a car park. There was also much more steel involved, the support columns were more massive, and they were protected with insulation.
I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers.
— J. McMichael
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm
So NIST here admits that in real world tests done by UL even though the four test specimens were tested at high heat temps for the appoximately 2 hour fire-test, NONE of the samples FAILED... and in the fire tests the steel reached temperatures of 590 - 700 C.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/ULtestresults.jpg
Obviously when the steel never reached temperatures in the 1000 C range during the oxygen starved fires burning within the towers BEFORE collapse, there is no way they could have continued heating to higher temperatures in the pit (under any rational normal circumstances) , given they had even less available oxygen (if you discount incendiaries), less fuel in more compacted regions, and the fact that the underground infernos were hottest at the lowest sections. The pre-existing fires were near the tops of the building so any residual fires in a normal gravity-driven collapse would be closer to the top of the rubble fire, NOT buried in the deepest levels creating temperatures far hotter than experienced while in the open air.
QUOTE Schneibster Feb 22 2006, 11:39 AM
Like the official conspiracy theory, then ?
QUOTE
by disinformationist B 'CS'
I guess you think the NIST report showing office furniture reaching 1,100 degrees C is fabricated. Either that or you are thinking of only the fuel and not the office furniture it may have ignited. Which is it?
I guess you think the NIST report showing office furniture reaching 1,100 degrees C is fabricated. Either that or you are thinking of only the fuel and not the office furniture it may have ignited. Which is it?
Please provide the quote from the NIST report which you feel supports the above statement.
I think you have fabricated the statement that NIST reports office furniture reaching 1,100 degrees C.
This is blatant disinformation. No where in the NIST report is such a statement made. Here, let me help you out a bit... isn't this the quote you are thinking of...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by disinformationist B 'CS' I guess you think the NIST report showing office furniture reaching 1,100 degrees C is fabricated. Either that or you are thinking of only the fuel and not the office furniture it may have ignited. Which is it? |
Please provide the quote from the NIST report which you feel supports the above statement.
I think you have fabricated the statement that NIST reports office furniture reaching 1,100 degrees C.
This is blatant disinformation. No where in the NIST report is such a statement made. Here, let me help you out a bit... isn't this the quote you are thinking of...
The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 125-6/175-6)
or this one...
QUOTE
At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)
The above quotes refer to air temperatures, NOT steel or office furnishing temperatures.
In December 2001, even Thomas Eagar (the pancaker) stated in an article in JOM...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.) |
The above quotes refer to air temperatures, NOT steel or office furnishing temperatures.
In December 2001, even Thomas Eagar (the pancaker) stated in an article in JOM...
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today {Dec 2001}, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.
Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material...
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.
In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.
In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.
Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types...
...the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range...
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
There seems to be some here promoting the idea that the steel within the towers reached 800 - 1000 C. NIST does NOT claim that --- they claim the air possibly (according to their highly tweaked models), reached these temperatures.
Corus Steel is an international that markets structural steel. This is how Corus describes the diminishing strength of steel in a fire...
QUOTE
6. Steelwork Fire Resistance
Fire resistance is measured by the length of time an element can survive in a standard fire without exceeding specified performance limits.
Fire Resistance is usually expressed in terms of compliance with a test regime outlined in BS476 Part 20 and 21 (11). It is a measure of the time taken before an element of construction exceeds specified limits for load carrying capacity, insulation and integrity. These limits are clearly defined in the standard.
Although the strength of steel at 550oC is about 60% of its room temperature strength, the fire resistance of a simple steel element depends on other factors such as its temperature profile and the applied load.
All materials become weaker when they get hot. The strength of steel at high temperature has been defined in great detail and it is known that at a temperature of 550oC structural steel will retain 60% of its room temperature strength.
Fire resistance is measured by the length of time an element can survive in a standard fire without exceeding specified performance limits.
Fire Resistance is usually expressed in terms of compliance with a test regime outlined in BS476 Part 20 and 21 (11). It is a measure of the time taken before an element of construction exceeds specified limits for load carrying capacity, insulation and integrity. These limits are clearly defined in the standard.
Although the strength of steel at 550oC is about 60% of its room temperature strength, the fire resistance of a simple steel element depends on other factors such as its temperature profile and the applied load.
All materials become weaker when they get hot. The strength of steel at high temperature has been defined in great detail and it is known that at a temperature of 550oC structural steel will retain 60% of its room temperature strength.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030818132750/.../fire/fr006.htm
J. McMichael did an update to his original page and created Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics Part II. He states...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 6. Steelwork Fire Resistance Fire resistance is measured by the length of time an element can survive in a standard fire without exceeding specified performance limits. Fire Resistance is usually expressed in terms of compliance with a test regime outlined in BS476 Part 20 and 21 (11). It is a measure of the time taken before an element of construction exceeds specified limits for load carrying capacity, insulation and integrity. These limits are clearly defined in the standard. Although the strength of steel at 550oC is about 60% of its room temperature strength, the fire resistance of a simple steel element depends on other factors such as its temperature profile and the applied load. All materials become weaker when they get hot. The strength of steel at high temperature has been defined in great detail and it is known that at a temperature of 550oC structural steel will retain 60% of its room temperature strength. |
http://web.archive.org/web/20030818132750/.../fire/fr006.htm
J. McMichael did an update to his original page and created Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics Part II. He states...
Note that structural steel at 550 degrees C (1022 F) has 60% of the strength of steel at normal temperatures. This weakening of steel when heated is supposedly responsible for the catastrophic collapse of the towers. The statement generates three questions to be answered in order to determine whether this phenomenon could cause the collapse of the World Trade Center:
1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?
2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?
3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?
Question 1:
In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.
It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.
Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.
Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.
Question 2:
The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.
The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.
Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).
For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.
Question 3:
Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.
Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.
These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.
A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park ( http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm ) [this web page is now at http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_137.htm ].
Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."
Here is the relevant paragraph, complete: "Steel-framed car parks have been rigorously fire tested in a number of countries (Table 3). These tests demonstrate that most unprotected steel in open sided steel-framed car parks has sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur. Table 3 lists the maximum temperatures reached in open sided car park tests in four countries. These can be compared with the characteristic failure temperatures for beams carrying insulating floor slabs and columns of 620 [degrees] C and 550 [degrees] C respectively."
Note that the description does not limit the duration of the fire. From this it does not appear to matter whether the fire burned all week or just for two hours. No mention is made, as some people have suggested (from erroneous interpretation of other graphs involving time), that prolonged heat brings about progressive weakening of steel.
Here is the data from Corus' Table 3 (beams are horizontal members, columns are vertical):
<IMAGE>
A fire in a steel car park is a very imprecise event, and the heating of the steel supports varied widely in the tests. The temperature of (horizontal) beams varied from 226 C in the USA to 340 C in Australia; and the temperature of (vertical) columns varied from 242 C in Japan to 360 C in the UK. None of the steel was protected with the thermal insulation that is commonly used in office buildings, including the WTC.
To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F).
Some may argue that there was much more fuel involved in the WTC events that in a car park. There was also much more steel involved, the support columns were more massive, and they were protected with insulation.
I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers.
— J. McMichael
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm
QUOTE
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added.)
So NIST here admits that in real world tests done by UL even though the four test specimens were tested at high heat temps for the appoximately 2 hour fire-test, NONE of the samples FAILED... and in the fire tests the steel reached temperatures of 590 - 700 C.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/ULtestresults.jpg
Obviously when the steel never reached temperatures in the 1000 C range during the oxygen starved fires burning within the towers BEFORE collapse, there is no way they could have continued heating to higher temperatures in the pit (under any rational normal circumstances) , given they had even less available oxygen (if you discount incendiaries), less fuel in more compacted regions, and the fact that the underground infernos were hottest at the lowest sections. The pre-existing fires were near the tops of the building so any residual fires in a normal gravity-driven collapse would be closer to the top of the rubble fire, NOT buried in the deepest levels creating temperatures far hotter than experienced while in the open air.
The pic below of the squib looks mysterious at first sight. If you watch the north tower collapse, you'll notice that the antenna tower falls first, which was connected to the inner core. The inner core of the building was actually falling ahead of the perimeter. If you look at video and still photos carefully, you can actually follow the collapse of the core and floors by noting the fire that passes by the windows on the way down. The collapsing inner section appears to be as much as a dozen floors ahead of the collapsing perimeter.
So NIST was definitely wrong with their collapse initiation scenario, since the walls could not have acted inwards on the columns if they were already a dozen floors below the collapse. Back to the drawing board for all those experts - again.
On the subject of the astonishingly high steel temperatures. While it may be true that we cannot see the surroundings from which the steel was pulled, we can see the piece of srroundings that was pulled out with the high temperature steel. Examining the temperature gradient identifies the path that the heat is following, and since these surroundings are colder than the steel we know that the heat was flowing away from the obviously hot steel.
G
Gordon
So NIST was definitely wrong with their collapse initiation scenario, since the walls could not have acted inwards on the columns if they were already a dozen floors below the collapse. Back to the drawing board for all those experts - again.
On the subject of the astonishingly high steel temperatures. While it may be true that we cannot see the surroundings from which the steel was pulled, we can see the piece of srroundings that was pulled out with the high temperature steel. Examining the temperature gradient identifies the path that the heat is following, and since these surroundings are colder than the steel we know that the heat was flowing away from the obviously hot steel.
G
Gordon
OK, folks, here's the deal. I went and looked Fauxie over, and he's got $50,000 worth of professional web proxy in front of his home address, with no web site that has a public name behind it. We're talking about professional hardware here, suitable for high-traffic proxy service, intended to serve a commercial web site on the open internet and create a DMZ behind it where you put the web server and cache server.
Now, there's no reason to put that in front of an address that doesn't have a web site with a public name behind it- unless you're not using it to serve a public web site. So what kind of private web site would you put behind that, which, since it's private, wouldn't get much traffic?
The answer is, it's a spam site. The heavy traffic isn't incoming; it's outgoing.
Guess what happened to me? Gee, funniest thing, I started getting spam after the little spat a few weeks back. Goodness me, I wonder how that ever happened? Do you suppose it's a coinky-dink? Yeahsureyabetcha.
So far I have identified one more of this spam gang (another one with serious hardware and nothing apparent for it to do, and an apparent axe to grind with me) and I'm tracking down a couple three more. I have names, addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses, ISP names, business addresses, business phones, fictitious name statements, and plenty more besides. I had considered posting it here, but I think that this will be much more damaging. The administrators of this site have apparently not elected to do anything about the use of my wife's name, and so I have chosen to take this action. If they kick me off for it, so be it. Unlike some, I won't bother playing games to get on here with proxy servers if I'm kicked; I'll be gone. My addiction just isn't that strong.
The situation has now come to a head; I have been lying back, reporting the IP addresses of the incoming spam to some dnsbls I have reporting privileges on, waiting for them to twig to the fact that the reason their spam runs were failing so much was because they'd made the mistake of revealing the IP addresses of the trojan spam engines they were running to me. They have finally figured it out, and are now attacking me in every other way they can figure. For example, by making insulting posts using my wife's name on this and other threads. For example, by making similar posts on another web site I frequent. For example, by trying hacker tools to break into my home server (unfortunately for them, I patch for all known exploits immediately- but then again, spammers aren't exactly gonna be your l33t ha><x0rs, now are they? Scum of the earth, is my experience.)
Now, if you consider carefully, you'll see that the entire point of spam is to make money one click at a time. What the spammer wants you to do is click on that link and view the advertising or whatever. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? It sounds just like what I told you they were doing hundreds of pages ago. If it were me, if I saw a link on here posted by a demolition theorist, I'd go out of my way not to click on it. Because that's the only reason there's any real debate on this; they're stirring it up hoping for those clicks. It's no different than the oil companies paying for research to cloud the issue of global warming. They always have another argument, and they always want you to click on that link to go see the proof. You saw the ones that didn't have their *** together react when I originally said it; do you see how the smarter ones reacted? Is it not clear? Can there be any question?
Gordon, so far, I explicitly exclude you from that company. From what I have seen, you honestly ask, and honestly will change your opinion if presented with clear and compelling evidence it was wrong. I sincerely hope you are not a member of this clique, I'll be most disappointed in you if I turn out to be wrong and you are. I have to ask you: do you ever intend to respond to my post? You put me off for quite some time, and never did respond (unless you did so using another ID, in which case please provide a link to the article).
In regard to the "law suit," I am sorry to say that it was a ruse. I apologize for deceitful actions, but I'm sure you can see why I would take them; considering what I have managed to discover, I think you'll have to admit that it was successful. As I told Faux initially, I'm after its connection to the 'Net; the acceptable use policies of most ISPs do not tolerate spamming, however they may euphemize this intolerance. If Faux is very experienced, its ISP may be one that tolerates this; however, with the appropriate anti-spam sites notified, I think there will not be much problem, and there are quite a few tactics in use to press spam-tolerant ISPs and convince them of the error of their ways. I hope to abate this nuisance before long. I strongly recommend to you all that you pursue getting an ISP that does not tolerate spam, unless you have the necessary knowledge to set up an email server that uses dnsbl blocking.
Now, there's no reason to put that in front of an address that doesn't have a web site with a public name behind it- unless you're not using it to serve a public web site. So what kind of private web site would you put behind that, which, since it's private, wouldn't get much traffic?
The answer is, it's a spam site. The heavy traffic isn't incoming; it's outgoing.
Guess what happened to me? Gee, funniest thing, I started getting spam after the little spat a few weeks back. Goodness me, I wonder how that ever happened? Do you suppose it's a coinky-dink? Yeahsureyabetcha.
So far I have identified one more of this spam gang (another one with serious hardware and nothing apparent for it to do, and an apparent axe to grind with me) and I'm tracking down a couple three more. I have names, addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses, ISP names, business addresses, business phones, fictitious name statements, and plenty more besides. I had considered posting it here, but I think that this will be much more damaging. The administrators of this site have apparently not elected to do anything about the use of my wife's name, and so I have chosen to take this action. If they kick me off for it, so be it. Unlike some, I won't bother playing games to get on here with proxy servers if I'm kicked; I'll be gone. My addiction just isn't that strong.
The situation has now come to a head; I have been lying back, reporting the IP addresses of the incoming spam to some dnsbls I have reporting privileges on, waiting for them to twig to the fact that the reason their spam runs were failing so much was because they'd made the mistake of revealing the IP addresses of the trojan spam engines they were running to me. They have finally figured it out, and are now attacking me in every other way they can figure. For example, by making insulting posts using my wife's name on this and other threads. For example, by making similar posts on another web site I frequent. For example, by trying hacker tools to break into my home server (unfortunately for them, I patch for all known exploits immediately- but then again, spammers aren't exactly gonna be your l33t ha><x0rs, now are they? Scum of the earth, is my experience.)
Now, if you consider carefully, you'll see that the entire point of spam is to make money one click at a time. What the spammer wants you to do is click on that link and view the advertising or whatever. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? It sounds just like what I told you they were doing hundreds of pages ago. If it were me, if I saw a link on here posted by a demolition theorist, I'd go out of my way not to click on it. Because that's the only reason there's any real debate on this; they're stirring it up hoping for those clicks. It's no different than the oil companies paying for research to cloud the issue of global warming. They always have another argument, and they always want you to click on that link to go see the proof. You saw the ones that didn't have their *** together react when I originally said it; do you see how the smarter ones reacted? Is it not clear? Can there be any question?
Gordon, so far, I explicitly exclude you from that company. From what I have seen, you honestly ask, and honestly will change your opinion if presented with clear and compelling evidence it was wrong. I sincerely hope you are not a member of this clique, I'll be most disappointed in you if I turn out to be wrong and you are. I have to ask you: do you ever intend to respond to my post? You put me off for quite some time, and never did respond (unless you did so using another ID, in which case please provide a link to the article).
In regard to the "law suit," I am sorry to say that it was a ruse. I apologize for deceitful actions, but I'm sure you can see why I would take them; considering what I have managed to discover, I think you'll have to admit that it was successful. As I told Faux initially, I'm after its connection to the 'Net; the acceptable use policies of most ISPs do not tolerate spamming, however they may euphemize this intolerance. If Faux is very experienced, its ISP may be one that tolerates this; however, with the appropriate anti-spam sites notified, I think there will not be much problem, and there are quite a few tactics in use to press spam-tolerant ISPs and convince them of the error of their ways. I hope to abate this nuisance before long. I strongly recommend to you all that you pursue getting an ISP that does not tolerate spam, unless you have the necessary knowledge to set up an email server that uses dnsbl blocking.
QUOTE Schneibster Feb 22 2006, 11:39 AM
QUOTE
In regard to the "law suit," I am sorry to say that it was a ruse.
Like the official conspiracy theory, then ?
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Feb 22 2006, 01:02 PM)
QUOTE Schneibster Feb 22 2006, 11:39 AM
Like the official conspiracy theory, then ?
No, more like you not admitting that the only reason your're here is because it pays you to be.
QUOTE
In regard to the "law suit," I am sorry to say that it was a ruse.
Like the official conspiracy theory, then ?
No, more like you not admitting that the only reason your're here is because it pays you to be.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 04:59 AM)
On the subject of the astonishingly high steel temperatures. While it may be true that we cannot see the surroundings from which the steel was pulled, we can see the piece of srroundings that was pulled out with the high temperature steel. Examining the temperature gradient identifies the path that the heat is following, and since these surroundings are colder than the steel we know that the heat was flowing away from the obviously hot steel.
Once again you LEAP to conclusions that aren't warrented.
(found better picture)
You can't tell if the darker material IS steel.
You can't tell where it was in relation to the steel when it was picked up.
You can't tell where it or the steel was in relation to the heat source.
It could have been on the surface and recently cooled by the water you see being sprayed, but then picked up in the same scoop with the glowing steel.
I repeat, you simply CAN'T make these kind of determinations from a single STILL picture.
Arthur
Once again you LEAP to conclusions that aren't warrented.
(found better picture)
You can't tell if the darker material IS steel.
You can't tell where it was in relation to the steel when it was picked up.
You can't tell where it or the steel was in relation to the heat source.
It could have been on the surface and recently cooled by the water you see being sprayed, but then picked up in the same scoop with the glowing steel.
I repeat, you simply CAN'T make these kind of determinations from a single STILL picture.
Arthur
Foxx,
Once again with your disinformation.
The recent discussion you pulled those quotes from was about FIRES IN THE DEBRIS PILE.
The NIST report showed that temps in the WTC office tests reached 1,100 C.
Thus, by definition, burning of office materials in the pile COULD also reach 1,100 C.
Unlike the WTC where the fires burned for an hour or so, the fires in the piles burned for weeks and weeks. Thus allowing some steel to reach ~ the temp of the fires burning below them.
NOWHERE was this a discussion about what temps the steel in the WTC towers reached.
Secondly, your posting of the Steel Truss tests by UL.
This was the test of the STANDARD TRUSSES.
They ALL had their INSULATION on them, applied conscientiously by an experienced worker and then checked for uniform thickness.
Of COURSE they didn't fail. They weren't supposed to fail. Which is what NIST said when they pointed out that the knocking off of the insulation was a key to the towers failure by the fire.
As their report indicates, in the fires in the WTC the EXPOSED truss steel would reach very high temperatures in very short time frames.
Of course, after FOUR YEARS OF STUDY, one would think your would know this.
So if you CLAIM you are not intentionally LYING, then I would have to assume you just don't READ what you post.
Arthur
Once again with your disinformation.
The recent discussion you pulled those quotes from was about FIRES IN THE DEBRIS PILE.
The NIST report showed that temps in the WTC office tests reached 1,100 C.
Thus, by definition, burning of office materials in the pile COULD also reach 1,100 C.
Unlike the WTC where the fires burned for an hour or so, the fires in the piles burned for weeks and weeks. Thus allowing some steel to reach ~ the temp of the fires burning below them.
NOWHERE was this a discussion about what temps the steel in the WTC towers reached.
Secondly, your posting of the Steel Truss tests by UL.
This was the test of the STANDARD TRUSSES.
They ALL had their INSULATION on them, applied conscientiously by an experienced worker and then checked for uniform thickness.
Of COURSE they didn't fail. They weren't supposed to fail. Which is what NIST said when they pointed out that the knocking off of the insulation was a key to the towers failure by the fire.
As their report indicates, in the fires in the WTC the EXPOSED truss steel would reach very high temperatures in very short time frames.
Of course, after FOUR YEARS OF STUDY, one would think your would know this.
So if you CLAIM you are not intentionally LYING, then I would have to assume you just don't READ what you post.
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 04:59 AM)
The pic below of the squib looks mysterious at first sight. If you watch the north tower collapse, you'll notice that the antenna tower falls first, which was connected to the inner core. The inner core of the building was actually falling ahead of the perimeter. If you look at video and still photos carefully, you can actually follow the collapse of the core and floors by noting the fire that passes by the windows on the way down. The collapsing inner section appears to be as much as a dozen floors ahead of the collapsing perimeter.
So NIST was definitely wrong with their collapse initiation scenario, since the walls could not have acted inwards on the columns if they were already a dozen floors below the collapse. Back to the drawing board for all those experts - again.
I love it, someone makes a CLAIM but with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
So I and others ask for LINKS to the pictures and videos that support these claims, and even though none are provided, the next post out of Gordon is:
So NIST was definitely wrong with their collapse initiation scenario,
Gordon, you keep using words that imply CERTAINTY when there is no certainty, and so you have come to remind me of Vezzini from the Princess bride.
So when you say "Definitely" or "Absolutely", I think: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Arthur
So NIST was definitely wrong with their collapse initiation scenario, since the walls could not have acted inwards on the columns if they were already a dozen floors below the collapse. Back to the drawing board for all those experts - again.
I love it, someone makes a CLAIM but with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
So I and others ask for LINKS to the pictures and videos that support these claims, and even though none are provided, the next post out of Gordon is:
So NIST was definitely wrong with their collapse initiation scenario,
Gordon, you keep using words that imply CERTAINTY when there is no certainty, and so you have come to remind me of Vezzini from the Princess bride.
So when you say "Definitely" or "Absolutely", I think: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Arthur
Well, let's say this Andy-Jack, one has to show the Physics in order for one to dispute the Physics, meaning that by showing a pretty slideshow with half baked claims about this event, based upon conjectured idealism’s, or the unmitigated confidences there with-in ones statements of PROOF, and/or Evidences to the nothingness there as the rampant false prose brings it on home with the perfection of formula in the believe me, or your an idiot conclusion!
Please, Andy-jack, show me anywhere in your high-tech picture show where indeed one has placed a single forthright application to an adherence of a given physics formulation? One states it wasn’t the jets impact, nor the explosive factors, and they place a heat index formulate suggestion to the pouring kerosene upon a beam of steel and lighting it.
You see, it comes as always, there with in the "package" of placated gibberish & nonsense, unto the pre-pasted and pre-packaged diatribes, which are lambasted in whole as a near to 100% incorrect accrual of falsehoods as anything could be, seems more of a given need into the maintenance to this reoccurring "cover-up" Charade, instead of actually proving their proof?
Though your presentation is "pretty" It's the carbon copy, exacting rehashed & completely moot to the ridicules giving of untrue ideals, and arguments that has been passed on & on in continence, with only one purpose. The purpose is solely to use as one does in using a gaffing-hook. In loud confident voice of well rehearsed BS one first snags the bait, and one holds the string as tightly as possible, while force feeding the psyche with the use of those pre-packaged "evidences" of false conclusions to empower them to take the "package unto others. Jim Hoffman and his 5 other Cronies to whom first brought this "Scripted" ever changing "Proof, Evidence, Incontestable Conclusion's of the demolition and cover-up to the whole 9-11 Situation.
Firstly, no plan could succeed if all the components to carry it out are not in place, and effectively convincing in action long before it occurs. First we hear of drones, and then it was the right plane but the wrong flight, as well as no plane hitting the Pentagon, and Now no plane hits WTC2, even though I watched it do so. Now, I know the come-back-rhetoric, as no I’ve never heard those words from you personally, but we aren’t here to justify your conclusions, but disproving the physics they were based upon, correct? Well, gathering anything of excess would be just as ridiculous as that which was posted, as you have given not one conclusion showing any principle of Physical Science, or formula. No the drawing of fluffy smoke around the middle of a "Stick-like" Figured Tower stating in description that the cloud or smoke ring represents that from explosion, and that’s cool and dandy, except for the fact that one has not proved that the ring was indeed created by that of explosion.
If one truly knows The Physical Sciences, they would also know that Laws are truly a No-Brainier to arrive at a verifiable equational outcome. Anyone needing more than 15 to 20 minutes of study to understand the given factors to collapse, by formulating in all the needed and known Laws unto the perimeters, structural make-up Vs Event addressing all strengths and shortcomings. The analysis would quickly prove, that failure was resulted of the 3 major catastrophic events that was placed upon each Tower, and is something that can't simply be yelled away in regaling unto another that they're an idiot for NOT listening to one's ramblings. It comes more to a mind by any continued daily action of forcing issue by this moot fallacy and is equivalent to one swinging the preverbal dead cat. We of true science know, motivations here really have nothing to do with the drive for the truth to finally be heard! Oh no, as have proven our case unto this old tired tale, and from it the truth shows rather a more political, and partisan ideology for it's continued motivations, as it will fade away just as it was designed to do from the start.
OK, the Proof you gave is invalid into one needs to place the proper perimeters into their Scientific Formulations. Here is where yours were incorrect, thus cant be accurate to anything but conjecture.
Neither Tower was a STRONG IRON-LIKE structure, In fact, they were designed intentionally to be flexible, lightweight and completely open between floors, less the elevator and core array, meaning that neither were a Steel Beam Framed Structure, and it was NOT supported internally by a massive heavy beamed Core encased in concrete. To the Contrary Core Shaft and elevators were encased with-in a Dry-wall system to eliminate the pressures created by high speed elevators in a structure so tall. The Redesign of the Towers were to incorporate mufti-cohesive structural entities working together to allow the Structure to keep standing. Meaning that if one were to remove the outer skin of any mega sky scraper, it's integrity would not be in jeopardy due to it's enter-linked, conventionally riveted, welded and boxed frame structure from top to bottom, and is usually on 16 foot centers. But, if one were to try and remove the skin from the WTC, it would not be able to maintain integrity on any floor where it had been removed. The interlocking fashion in it's components all work in order for it to stay up.
I guess the best way to envision the system is look at how a bed frame works. Like the headboard, is the core, and the foot board that of the outer skin. Now the frame works on the bed because they are hooked together and use each other for balancing themselves using the load bearing steel rails they are connected with on each end. This is just how the WTC was assembled. The Bed rails can be compared to the floating Truss and poured Concrete floor/ceiling system. Just as the bed, WTC was hooked on one end to the core system for load bearing, and to the outer skin via a mufti piece stamped steel gurder rails wrapped together by 1 and a quarter inch bar of steel crimp fastened, and coupled to a rubber and steel damper unit on each outer mounting, to allow the flex of 7 feet side to side wind shifts. The outer skin was not A steel I beam, solid system, but rather for weight necessity, a latticework of bolted together pre-fab double sectioned frames made of hollow steel tubes tempered to extreme hardness & stiffness. The outer skin was NOT designed to support load bearing applications, and each open beamless floor had been only designed to support double it's load, and all of it's components need to be intact. Now, as the Plane Impacted the structure at 500 + Miles Per Hour, with a Mass at 200,000 pounds, the Pounds Feet per Square was around 100,000 to the foot, or about 400.000 Jules. Enough to rip out 3 floors up, and 3 floors down, while ripping out the other side of the building before exploding, meaning that most of the jet fuel had time to permeate textiles, the million pounds of paper files, dry wall, etc.
Now, Knowing that both Planes had exited out the other side brings the only conclusion that unless the core stops the impaling object, the object removes the, simply put, if the plane went through the building, then the core had to be cone for the floors it crashed through, or it wouldn’t have been able to come through it, this isn’t osmosis here, in that we have to have a breech in 2 solid platforms striking each other, the laws of Science proves that if the plane continued on past the core, then it had to have been sliced through, rendering it useless, as its top mounting was through the top of the Tower and like spokes on a wheel, tightened to give it strength. As soon as the Core was sliced through, just like cut through spokes it became useless. meaning that the integrity of the whole structure was eventually doomed. No we have an Explosion inside the structure with the equivalency of 10,000 lbs of TNT, or half a MOAB. and caused equal forces of outward force and stress upon the only system holding up the building, the no load bearing outer skin that now has one face cut completely through by the wing slicing it, and then there’s an entry and exit from the plane taking about 6 floors of structure with it. After extended heat from the fires, the TEMPER was altered in the BOLTS & HARDWARE DEVICES, NOT THE FRAME Causing multiple floors to start collapsing inside of the Tower, until the top Section gave away due to the fastening devices shearing drops it's One Million Tons Of Weight down the 70 foot breech right atop the next floor, and just like a Fat Guy Jumping on that Bed Frame, crashed right on through, blowing out every floor there after, as the mass gained the weight of one floor with each collision all the way down at 125 miles per hour. Any fool to think that even the tiniest of firecrackers was needed in the failure has a need to go back to Graduate School and Learn all over again, that once there is a complete loss of control unto the gravitational forces weather induced of Constant, a force more than double is needed to incrementally counteract the force, we are talking ONE MILLION TONS, at 125 Miles Per Hour, do ones really think that pop-gun force from a hand full of nitro was needed? The explosive shearing of a structures beams to bring it down is designed to start GRAVITY'S natural Pull! The Towers had that in spades, an for someone to keep ahead of such an event with a hot box detonator is ***-nine! Go stand by the freeway and try to manipulate any 4 actions of any such before a car passes only at 70! It wasn’t something that could be pre calculated, as It was all dependent to where the planes hit, thus it could not have been an event pre programmed.
(SxV+W=J)(V=10x10x10x10)+(KxM)
.50Fx2H(10x10x10M)+E)
I've investigated this matter for over 3 and a half years now, and have all the charts and graphs and proven science formulation if one wants me to waste valuable space here in a rehashing of all this poop, and it really fails me in any understanding to how anyone could justify or blindside any importance other than that unto the entirety of THIS WHOLE EVENT, by brushing it all off on to some idiocy about jet fuel being poured on steel? Please, and you want us to believe that you have applied true Physics unto this model?. Please now, Andy-Jack, maybe it's more likely, these motivations come as all others have before, and more from those with a certain close-link to groups of the far Bush Hatin' Left, and/or those with-in the certain Anti-Globalization mentality? You know, those pseudo-intellectuals to whom have agendas that rely upon convincing a certain percentage of the ignorant population through Strawman Fallacy Rhetoric, and the ones that just can't let go of all of their lost causes? More an Observance than any confirmed conclusion, so I can't wait to see the rebut, as I know I am gonna have to bring out the Brand X Templates to an already known barrage of unremarkable proof, once again...........
Please, Andy-jack, show me anywhere in your high-tech picture show where indeed one has placed a single forthright application to an adherence of a given physics formulation? One states it wasn’t the jets impact, nor the explosive factors, and they place a heat index formulate suggestion to the pouring kerosene upon a beam of steel and lighting it.
You see, it comes as always, there with in the "package" of placated gibberish & nonsense, unto the pre-pasted and pre-packaged diatribes, which are lambasted in whole as a near to 100% incorrect accrual of falsehoods as anything could be, seems more of a given need into the maintenance to this reoccurring "cover-up" Charade, instead of actually proving their proof?
Though your presentation is "pretty" It's the carbon copy, exacting rehashed & completely moot to the ridicules giving of untrue ideals, and arguments that has been passed on & on in continence, with only one purpose. The purpose is solely to use as one does in using a gaffing-hook. In loud confident voice of well rehearsed BS one first snags the bait, and one holds the string as tightly as possible, while force feeding the psyche with the use of those pre-packaged "evidences" of false conclusions to empower them to take the "package unto others. Jim Hoffman and his 5 other Cronies to whom first brought this "Scripted" ever changing "Proof, Evidence, Incontestable Conclusion's of the demolition and cover-up to the whole 9-11 Situation.
Firstly, no plan could succeed if all the components to carry it out are not in place, and effectively convincing in action long before it occurs. First we hear of drones, and then it was the right plane but the wrong flight, as well as no plane hitting the Pentagon, and Now no plane hits WTC2, even though I watched it do so. Now, I know the come-back-rhetoric, as no I’ve never heard those words from you personally, but we aren’t here to justify your conclusions, but disproving the physics they were based upon, correct? Well, gathering anything of excess would be just as ridiculous as that which was posted, as you have given not one conclusion showing any principle of Physical Science, or formula. No the drawing of fluffy smoke around the middle of a "Stick-like" Figured Tower stating in description that the cloud or smoke ring represents that from explosion, and that’s cool and dandy, except for the fact that one has not proved that the ring was indeed created by that of explosion.
If one truly knows The Physical Sciences, they would also know that Laws are truly a No-Brainier to arrive at a verifiable equational outcome. Anyone needing more than 15 to 20 minutes of study to understand the given factors to collapse, by formulating in all the needed and known Laws unto the perimeters, structural make-up Vs Event addressing all strengths and shortcomings. The analysis would quickly prove, that failure was resulted of the 3 major catastrophic events that was placed upon each Tower, and is something that can't simply be yelled away in regaling unto another that they're an idiot for NOT listening to one's ramblings. It comes more to a mind by any continued daily action of forcing issue by this moot fallacy and is equivalent to one swinging the preverbal dead cat. We of true science know, motivations here really have nothing to do with the drive for the truth to finally be heard! Oh no, as have proven our case unto this old tired tale, and from it the truth shows rather a more political, and partisan ideology for it's continued motivations, as it will fade away just as it was designed to do from the start.
OK, the Proof you gave is invalid into one needs to place the proper perimeters into their Scientific Formulations. Here is where yours were incorrect, thus cant be accurate to anything but conjecture.
Neither Tower was a STRONG IRON-LIKE structure, In fact, they were designed intentionally to be flexible, lightweight and completely open between floors, less the elevator and core array, meaning that neither were a Steel Beam Framed Structure, and it was NOT supported internally by a massive heavy beamed Core encased in concrete. To the Contrary Core Shaft and elevators were encased with-in a Dry-wall system to eliminate the pressures created by high speed elevators in a structure so tall. The Redesign of the Towers were to incorporate mufti-cohesive structural entities working together to allow the Structure to keep standing. Meaning that if one were to remove the outer skin of any mega sky scraper, it's integrity would not be in jeopardy due to it's enter-linked, conventionally riveted, welded and boxed frame structure from top to bottom, and is usually on 16 foot centers. But, if one were to try and remove the skin from the WTC, it would not be able to maintain integrity on any floor where it had been removed. The interlocking fashion in it's components all work in order for it to stay up.
I guess the best way to envision the system is look at how a bed frame works. Like the headboard, is the core, and the foot board that of the outer skin. Now the frame works on the bed because they are hooked together and use each other for balancing themselves using the load bearing steel rails they are connected with on each end. This is just how the WTC was assembled. The Bed rails can be compared to the floating Truss and poured Concrete floor/ceiling system. Just as the bed, WTC was hooked on one end to the core system for load bearing, and to the outer skin via a mufti piece stamped steel gurder rails wrapped together by 1 and a quarter inch bar of steel crimp fastened, and coupled to a rubber and steel damper unit on each outer mounting, to allow the flex of 7 feet side to side wind shifts. The outer skin was not A steel I beam, solid system, but rather for weight necessity, a latticework of bolted together pre-fab double sectioned frames made of hollow steel tubes tempered to extreme hardness & stiffness. The outer skin was NOT designed to support load bearing applications, and each open beamless floor had been only designed to support double it's load, and all of it's components need to be intact. Now, as the Plane Impacted the structure at 500 + Miles Per Hour, with a Mass at 200,000 pounds, the Pounds Feet per Square was around 100,000 to the foot, or about 400.000 Jules. Enough to rip out 3 floors up, and 3 floors down, while ripping out the other side of the building before exploding, meaning that most of the jet fuel had time to permeate textiles, the million pounds of paper files, dry wall, etc.
Now, Knowing that both Planes had exited out the other side brings the only conclusion that unless the core stops the impaling object, the object removes the, simply put, if the plane went through the building, then the core had to be cone for the floors it crashed through, or it wouldn’t have been able to come through it, this isn’t osmosis here, in that we have to have a breech in 2 solid platforms striking each other, the laws of Science proves that if the plane continued on past the core, then it had to have been sliced through, rendering it useless, as its top mounting was through the top of the Tower and like spokes on a wheel, tightened to give it strength. As soon as the Core was sliced through, just like cut through spokes it became useless. meaning that the integrity of the whole structure was eventually doomed. No we have an Explosion inside the structure with the equivalency of 10,000 lbs of TNT, or half a MOAB. and caused equal forces of outward force and stress upon the only system holding up the building, the no load bearing outer skin that now has one face cut completely through by the wing slicing it, and then there’s an entry and exit from the plane taking about 6 floors of structure with it. After extended heat from the fires, the TEMPER was altered in the BOLTS & HARDWARE DEVICES, NOT THE FRAME Causing multiple floors to start collapsing inside of the Tower, until the top Section gave away due to the fastening devices shearing drops it's One Million Tons Of Weight down the 70 foot breech right atop the next floor, and just like a Fat Guy Jumping on that Bed Frame, crashed right on through, blowing out every floor there after, as the mass gained the weight of one floor with each collision all the way down at 125 miles per hour. Any fool to think that even the tiniest of firecrackers was needed in the failure has a need to go back to Graduate School and Learn all over again, that once there is a complete loss of control unto the gravitational forces weather induced of Constant, a force more than double is needed to incrementally counteract the force, we are talking ONE MILLION TONS, at 125 Miles Per Hour, do ones really think that pop-gun force from a hand full of nitro was needed? The explosive shearing of a structures beams to bring it down is designed to start GRAVITY'S natural Pull! The Towers had that in spades, an for someone to keep ahead of such an event with a hot box detonator is ***-nine! Go stand by the freeway and try to manipulate any 4 actions of any such before a car passes only at 70! It wasn’t something that could be pre calculated, as It was all dependent to where the planes hit, thus it could not have been an event pre programmed.
(SxV+W=J)(V=10x10x10x10)+(KxM)
.50Fx2H(10x10x10M)+E)
I've investigated this matter for over 3 and a half years now, and have all the charts and graphs and proven science formulation if one wants me to waste valuable space here in a rehashing of all this poop, and it really fails me in any understanding to how anyone could justify or blindside any importance other than that unto the entirety of THIS WHOLE EVENT, by brushing it all off on to some idiocy about jet fuel being poured on steel? Please, and you want us to believe that you have applied true Physics unto this model?. Please now, Andy-Jack, maybe it's more likely, these motivations come as all others have before, and more from those with a certain close-link to groups of the far Bush Hatin' Left, and/or those with-in the certain Anti-Globalization mentality? You know, those pseudo-intellectuals to whom have agendas that rely upon convincing a certain percentage of the ignorant population through Strawman Fallacy Rhetoric, and the ones that just can't let go of all of their lost causes? More an Observance than any confirmed conclusion, so I can't wait to see the rebut, as I know I am gonna have to bring out the Brand X Templates to an already known barrage of unremarkable proof, once again...........
Bonedry, How does WTC7 fit into your conceptual framework ?
Well said Bonedry.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 21 2006, 03:34 AM)
QUOTE (brian+)
It can be sometimes amusing but mostly tiresome watching these clowns deny that which anyone that has taken trouble to aquaint themselves with the construction of the towers knows is quite simply impossible. Such buildings could not have collapsed in the manner and at the speed they did, literally impossible absent extra energy. That is obvious without all the evidence showing demolition.
So I take it you assume that the UK engineers (Lamont & Lane) at Arup are on the take as well?
Since they presumably are "aquainted with the construction of the towers", yet in their discussion of the NIST report never once mention that "they could not have collapsed in the manner and speed they did" or that the collapse would have been "impossible, absent extra energy".
What is OBVIOUS to you is apparently not OBVIOUS to engineers FAMILIAR with the construction of large buildings.
Arthur
Like NIST, Lamont & Lane only addressed the hypothesis that the damage and fire were capable of brining about the collapse. They then offered a possible scenario.
Had they been addressing the manner and time of collapse they would have found it impossible to profer the same scenario. Like NIST they ignored the reality and concocted a dubious scenario.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the manner and time of collapse due to fire and damage is a complete and utter impossibility and anyone familiar with the construction who says otherwise is either remarkably stupid or lying.
It really is as simple as that.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
So I take it you assume that the UK engineers (Lamont & Lane) at Arup are on the take as well?
Since they presumably are "aquainted with the construction of the towers", yet in their discussion of the NIST report never once mention that "they could not have collapsed in the manner and speed they did" or that the collapse would have been "impossible, absent extra energy".
What is OBVIOUS to you is apparently not OBVIOUS to engineers FAMILIAR with the construction of large buildings.
Arthur
Like NIST, Lamont & Lane only addressed the hypothesis that the damage and fire were capable of brining about the collapse. They then offered a possible scenario.
Had they been addressing the manner and time of collapse they would have found it impossible to profer the same scenario. Like NIST they ignored the reality and concocted a dubious scenario.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the manner and time of collapse due to fire and damage is a complete and utter impossibility and anyone familiar with the construction who says otherwise is either remarkably stupid or lying.
It really is as simple as that.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
QUOTE (brian+Feb 22 2006, 11:20 AM)
I have no doubt whatsoever that the manner and time of collapse due to fire and damage is a complete and utter impossibility and anyone familiar with the construction who says otherwise is either remarkably stupid or lying.
Brian, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
If you don't actually provide EVIDENCE that supports your baseless rants then you simply come across as someone who is "either remarkably stupid or lying".
Arthur
PS Posting a link to Griffin is NOT evidence.
Brian, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
If you don't actually provide EVIDENCE that supports your baseless rants then you simply come across as someone who is "either remarkably stupid or lying".
Arthur
PS Posting a link to Griffin is NOT evidence.
I stand corrected, I do not "believe" - I Know.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=0
Anyone familiar with the construction of the towers and the most basic grasp of physics KNOWS the official story is impossible. That is why Andrew Johnsons opening post has been assailed by the crew but never breached.
It really is as simple as that.
All the obfuscation from the Legend, RC, Scheibster etc or the verbiage from the likes of bonedry wont alter this simple fact one jot.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=0
Anyone familiar with the construction of the towers and the most basic grasp of physics KNOWS the official story is impossible. That is why Andrew Johnsons opening post has been assailed by the crew but never breached.
It really is as simple as that.
All the obfuscation from the Legend, RC, Scheibster etc or the verbiage from the likes of bonedry wont alter this simple fact one jot.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Never breached????
Moron
Arthur
Moron
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 07:37 AM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 22 2006, 11:20 AM)
I have no doubt whatsoever that the manner and time of collapse due to fire and damage is a complete and utter impossibility and anyone familiar with the construction who says otherwise is either remarkably stupid or lying.
Brian, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
If you don't actually provide EVIDENCE that supports your baseless rants then you simply come across as someone who is "either remarkably stupid or lying".
Arthur
PS Posting a link to Griffin is NOT evidence.
Arthur, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
You forgot to qualify your statement with “this is what Arthur believes ”. If Arthur does not agree with Brians opinion it is “either remarkably stupid or lying.”
Brian, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
If you don't actually provide EVIDENCE that supports your baseless rants then you simply come across as someone who is "either remarkably stupid or lying".
Arthur
PS Posting a link to Griffin is NOT evidence.
Arthur, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
You forgot to qualify your statement with “this is what Arthur believes ”. If Arthur does not agree with Brians opinion it is “either remarkably stupid or lying.”
Poor Arthur, reduced to name calling on a semantic quibble. From someone who can make "it" mean "firemen" a rather desperate move but not unusual. He feels the need (paid) to respond no matter how clownish it makes him.
Griffin -
The official theory about the collapse of the towers, I have suggested, is rendered extremely implausible by two main facts. First, aside from the alleged exception of 9/11, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been caused to collapse by fire; all such collapses have all been produced by carefully placed explosives. Second, the collapses of the Twin Towers manifested at least 11 characteristic features of controlled demolitions. The probability that any of these features would occur in the absence of explosives is extremely low. The probability that all 11 of them would occur is essentially zero.[46]
We can say, therefore, that the official theory about the towers is disproved about as thoroughly as such a theory possibly could be, whereas all the evidence can be explained by the alternative theory, according to which the towers were brought down by explosives. The official theory is, accordingly, an outrageous theory, whereas the alternative theory is, from a scientific point of view, the only reasonable theory available.[47]
-
So, as I was saying - the possibility of the official tale - "essentially zero"
Arthur, essentially zero, you may have come across it regarding your credibility.
Griffin -
The official theory about the collapse of the towers, I have suggested, is rendered extremely implausible by two main facts. First, aside from the alleged exception of 9/11, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been caused to collapse by fire; all such collapses have all been produced by carefully placed explosives. Second, the collapses of the Twin Towers manifested at least 11 characteristic features of controlled demolitions. The probability that any of these features would occur in the absence of explosives is extremely low. The probability that all 11 of them would occur is essentially zero.[46]
We can say, therefore, that the official theory about the towers is disproved about as thoroughly as such a theory possibly could be, whereas all the evidence can be explained by the alternative theory, according to which the towers were brought down by explosives. The official theory is, accordingly, an outrageous theory, whereas the alternative theory is, from a scientific point of view, the only reasonable theory available.[47]
-
So, as I was saying - the possibility of the official tale - "essentially zero"
Arthur, essentially zero, you may have come across it regarding your credibility.
Hooray... the Dr. has returned to provide more jollies.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=66811
Hahahahahaha, that's another good one, Schneiby !!!
Found out you didn't have a leg to stand on with your stupid 'lawsuit'...Ehhh ? So now, you resort to making up preposterous stories with your personal attacks.
Hahahahahaha, that's another good one, Schneiby !!!
Found out you didn't have a leg to stand on with your stupid 'lawsuit'...Ehhh ? So now, you resort to making up preposterous stories with your personal attacks.
he's got $50,000 worth of professional web proxy in front of his home address, with no web site that has a public name behind it.
While I have no idea what that statement is supposed to mean, I again challenge the Schneiby to prove this bs.
Let the information doors open there, Pink Panther.
If I had $50,000 worth of anything I'd be selling it, and buying 3 sets of the NIST secret library of pictures and videos.
Anyone can easily find my particulars on the web, and anyone who does will quickly see that Schneibster is quite 'off-his-rocker', and is so full of bs that it's coming out his mouth (but we all knew that anyway).
He is so far off base I am ROTFLMAO. (Rolling on the floor laughing my *** off)
One thing he has certainly convinced me of with this latest nonsense is that he is truly psychologically and/or emotionally disturbed.
The paranoid delusions are flowing like waterfalls from his keyboard... "everyone is spamming me"
It was nice of him to admit that his 'lawsuit' was bull (in the first place), which only shows what a loose cannon this idiot is.
Guess, he got tired of all the comments about... "How's the lawsuit coming?"
BWAAA...hahahaha !!!
Now, go ahead, Schneiby... please don't hold back... and publish the full results of your Pink Panther investigation to show where any of the bull in your latest 'attack' is backed by ANY evidence whatsoever.
I will look forward to your making yourself look like the fool you are... ONCE AGAIN.
Until then... "How's the evidence mounting?"
Hahahahahahaha
AND, he has the gall to call US 'paranoid delusionals'...
Keep posting, Schneiby... I love watching someone make a public idiot of themselves.
False... NOBODY cares what adoucette and his small band of obfuscators and disinformationists PROMOTES.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=66811
QUOTE
Originally posted by the 'original' Schneibster (Dr. Jekyl )
OK, folks, here's the deal. I went and looked Fauxie over, and he's got $50,000 worth of professional web proxy in front of his home address, with no web site that has a public name behind it. We're talking about professional hardware here, suitable for high-traffic proxy service, intended to serve a commercial web site on the open internet and create a DMZ behind it where you put the web server and cache server.
OK, folks, here's the deal. I went and looked Fauxie over, and he's got $50,000 worth of professional web proxy in front of his home address, with no web site that has a public name behind it. We're talking about professional hardware here, suitable for high-traffic proxy service, intended to serve a commercial web site on the open internet and create a DMZ behind it where you put the web server and cache server.
Hahahahahaha, that's another good one, Schneiby !!!
Found out you didn't have a leg to stand on with your stupid 'lawsuit'...Ehhh ? So now, you resort to making up preposterous stories with your personal attacks.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by the 'original' Schneibster (Dr. Jekyl ) OK, folks, here's the deal. I went and looked Fauxie over, and he's got $50,000 worth of professional web proxy in front of his home address, with no web site that has a public name behind it. We're talking about professional hardware here, suitable for high-traffic proxy service, intended to serve a commercial web site on the open internet and create a DMZ behind it where you put the web server and cache server. |
Hahahahahaha, that's another good one, Schneiby !!!
Found out you didn't have a leg to stand on with your stupid 'lawsuit'...Ehhh ? So now, you resort to making up preposterous stories with your personal attacks.
he's got $50,000 worth of professional web proxy in front of his home address, with no web site that has a public name behind it.
While I have no idea what that statement is supposed to mean, I again challenge the Schneiby to prove this bs.
Let the information doors open there, Pink Panther.
If I had $50,000 worth of anything I'd be selling it, and buying 3 sets of the NIST secret library of pictures and videos.
Anyone can easily find my particulars on the web, and anyone who does will quickly see that Schneibster is quite 'off-his-rocker', and is so full of bs that it's coming out his mouth (but we all knew that anyway).
He is so far off base I am ROTFLMAO. (Rolling on the floor laughing my *** off)
One thing he has certainly convinced me of with this latest nonsense is that he is truly psychologically and/or emotionally disturbed.
The paranoid delusions are flowing like waterfalls from his keyboard... "everyone is spamming me"
It was nice of him to admit that his 'lawsuit' was bull (in the first place), which only shows what a loose cannon this idiot is.
Guess, he got tired of all the comments about... "How's the lawsuit coming?"
BWAAA...hahahaha !!!
Now, go ahead, Schneiby... please don't hold back... and publish the full results of your Pink Panther investigation to show where any of the bull in your latest 'attack' is backed by ANY evidence whatsoever.
I will look forward to your making yourself look like the fool you are... ONCE AGAIN.
Until then... "How's the evidence mounting?"
Hahahahahahaha
AND, he has the gall to call US 'paranoid delusionals'...
Keep posting, Schneiby... I love watching someone make a public idiot of themselves.
QUOTE
by the legendarian
Brian, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE
Brian, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE
False... NOBODY cares what adoucette and his small band of obfuscators and disinformationists PROMOTES.
This is a graph of Schneibste's redicules computer program when you factor in the building. Does not come close to matching the near free fall collapse of the towers.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Faux is playing games again... As the Rock once said "It doesn't matter" if the air temps created by the office fire furniture were 1,100 C or or the office furniture itself reached it. In fact it's better if the air temps reached 1,100 as far as the official story is concerned so why would I hide that fact??? I should thank Faux for pointing that out since the NIST said 1,100 C air temps heated the steel to 600C.
All anyone has to do is search the NIST report and you will find 4 instances of '1,100'. The first one says common combustibles reach 1,100 C. The second says they tested near-ceiling temps at between 800 c and 1,100 C. The third is furnace test with actual WTC columns which saw an uninsulated column reach 600 C after being in the exposed to 1,100 for 13 min, and the last says they expected, then confirmed the 1,100 C temps from the controlled experiment.
Faux also fails to mention Thomas Eagar AGREES with the NIST final report.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
Any moron can double check this stuff. It takes a special moron to ignore it.
I see nothing here that isn't in the NIST final report. Buckling or crippling is just one of the factors taken into account. The NIST even says the fuel played a roll in fires as an accelerant. Not that the fuel caused the collapse.
All anyone has to do is search the NIST report and you will find 4 instances of '1,100'. The first one says common combustibles reach 1,100 C. The second says they tested near-ceiling temps at between 800 c and 1,100 C. The third is furnace test with actual WTC columns which saw an uninsulated column reach 600 C after being in the exposed to 1,100 for 13 min, and the last says they expected, then confirmed the 1,100 C temps from the controlled experiment.
Faux also fails to mention Thomas Eagar AGREES with the NIST final report.
QUOTE
" the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse."
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
Any moron can double check this stuff. It takes a special moron to ignore it.
I see nothing here that isn't in the NIST final report. Buckling or crippling is just one of the factors taken into account. The NIST even says the fuel played a roll in fires as an accelerant. Not that the fuel caused the collapse.
QUOTE (Bonedry+Feb 22 2006, 03:07 PM)
these motivations come as all others have before, and more from those with a certain close-link to groups of the far Bush Hatin' Left, and/or those with-in the certain Anti-Globalization mentality? You know, those pseudo-intellectuals to whom have agendas that rely upon convincing a certain percentage of the ignorant population through Strawman Fallacy Rhetoric, and the ones that just can't let go of all of their lost causes? More an Observance than any confirmed conclusion, so I can't wait to see the rebut, as I know I am gonna have to bring out the Brand X Templates to an already known barrage of unremarkable proof, once again...........
I'll make a deal with you. Don't lump these morons with liberals like me and I won't lump conservatives who thought Clinton murdered Brown with you.
For all I know they work for Rove so conservatives can make the connection you made and laugh. Though faux is canadian/french and could be getting even with us for "freedom fries". 
But you are spot on with everything else. Welcome.
I'll make a deal with you. Don't lump these morons with liberals like me and I won't lump conservatives who thought Clinton murdered Brown with you.
For all I know they work for Rove so conservatives can make the connection you made and laugh. Though faux is canadian/french and could be getting even with us for "freedom fries". But you are spot on with everything else. Welcome.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 12:16 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 07:37 AM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 22 2006, 11:20 AM)
I have no doubt whatsoever that the manner and time of collapse due to fire and damage is a complete and utter impossibility and anyone familiar with the construction who says otherwise is either remarkably stupid or lying.
Brian, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
If you don't actually provide EVIDENCE that supports your baseless rants then you simply come across as someone who is "either remarkably stupid or lying".
Arthur
PS Posting a link to Griffin is NOT evidence.
Arthur, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
Gosh, something we agree on, what someone believes is not EVIDENCE.
Arthur
Brian, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
If you don't actually provide EVIDENCE that supports your baseless rants then you simply come across as someone who is "either remarkably stupid or lying".
Arthur
PS Posting a link to Griffin is NOT evidence.
Arthur, NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
Gosh, something we agree on, what someone believes is not EVIDENCE.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 04:28 PM)
This is a graph of Schneibste's redicules computer program when you factor in the building. Does not come close to matching the near free fall collapse of the towers.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 21 2006, 11:30 PM)
...We already found out from the NIST tests that the temps when burning TYPICAL office material reached 1,100 C.
You've accidently misquoted the NIST report here.
Also, I believe NIST said none of the steel examined had gotten over 650 C.
I think the subject is too important to be so loose with the relevant information. Shouldn't we quote sources of information carefully?
You've accidently misquoted the NIST report here.
Also, I believe NIST said none of the steel examined had gotten over 650 C.
I think the subject is too important to be so loose with the relevant information. Shouldn't we quote sources of information carefully?
QUOTE (Guest_computer fogie+Feb 22 2006, 01:36 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 21 2006, 11:30 PM)
...We already found out from the NIST tests that the temps when burning TYPICAL office material reached 1,100 C.
You've accidently misquoted the NIST report here.
Also, I believe NIST said none of the steel examined had gotten over 650 C.
I think the subject is too important to be so loose with the relevant information. Shouldn't we quote sources of information carefully?
Because EVERYONE should have a copy of the NIST report.
While SOME people apparently can "cut and paste", I can't with my version.
So if I don't put it in quotes, I'm paraphrasing.
Now, the question is am I being accurate?
In NIST Final report, Section 6.10 Modeling Approach, they show how they burned TYPICAL office furnishings (i.e. cubicles, computers, papers, chairs and desks) and measured the temps.
On page 124, describing the test, they state that the "near ceiling temps varied between 800 C and 1,100 C."
Which I translated to: "...We already found out from the NIST tests that the temps when burning TYPICAL office material reached 1,100 C."
So how am I misrepresenting what the report said?
Arthur
You've accidently misquoted the NIST report here.
Also, I believe NIST said none of the steel examined had gotten over 650 C.
I think the subject is too important to be so loose with the relevant information. Shouldn't we quote sources of information carefully?
Because EVERYONE should have a copy of the NIST report.
While SOME people apparently can "cut and paste", I can't with my version.
So if I don't put it in quotes, I'm paraphrasing.
Now, the question is am I being accurate?
In NIST Final report, Section 6.10 Modeling Approach, they show how they burned TYPICAL office furnishings (i.e. cubicles, computers, papers, chairs and desks) and measured the temps.
On page 124, describing the test, they state that the "near ceiling temps varied between 800 C and 1,100 C."
Which I translated to: "...We already found out from the NIST tests that the temps when burning TYPICAL office material reached 1,100 C."
So how am I misrepresenting what the report said?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 05:54 PM)
On page 124, describing the test, they state that the "near ceiling temps varied between 800 C and 1,100 C."
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 22 2006, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 04:28 PM)
This is a graph of Schneibste's redicules computer program when you factor in the building. Does not come close to matching the near free fall collapse of the towers.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
Maybe if you READ THIS SLOWLY.
The fires in the TOWERS burned for ~ 1 HOUR.
The tower fires were CAPABLE of producing AIR temperatures up to 1,100 C.
The fires in the RUBBLE PILE burned for MONTHS
If the fires in the RUBBLE PILE were capable of producing SIMILAR temperatures to the fires in the Towers (since they were burning SIMILAR stuff) but the RUBBLE PILE FIRES could burn for MONTHS, then the temperatures of the STEEL in the RUBBLE PILE could OBVIOUSLY get HOTTER than the steel in the TOWERS.
Arthur
The fires in the TOWERS burned for ~ 1 HOUR.
The tower fires were CAPABLE of producing AIR temperatures up to 1,100 C.
The fires in the RUBBLE PILE burned for MONTHS
If the fires in the RUBBLE PILE were capable of producing SIMILAR temperatures to the fires in the Towers (since they were burning SIMILAR stuff) but the RUBBLE PILE FIRES could burn for MONTHS, then the temperatures of the STEEL in the RUBBLE PILE could OBVIOUSLY get HOTTER than the steel in the TOWERS.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 22 2006, 06:19 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 05:54 PM)
On page 124, describing the test, they state that the "near ceiling temps varied between 800 C and 1,100 C."
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
WHO SAID THE STEEL REACHED 1,100 C BEFORE COLLAPSE!!!
Please provide a quote!!!
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
WHO SAID THE STEEL REACHED 1,100 C BEFORE COLLAPSE!!!
Please provide a quote!!!
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 22 2006, 10:19 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 05:54 PM)
On page 124, describing the test, they state that the "near ceiling temps varied between 800 C and 1,100 C."
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
In addition, the test environment used 2 hydrocarbon spray burners heating the test chamber during the peak temperatures.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5C.pdf
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
In addition, the test environment used 2 hydrocarbon spray burners heating the test chamber during the peak temperatures.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5C.pdf
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 02:46 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 22 2006, 10:19 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 05:54 PM)
On page 124, describing the test, they state that the "near ceiling temps varied between 800 C and 1,100 C."
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
In addition, the test environment used 2 hydrocarbon spray burners heating the test chamber during the peak temperatures.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5C.pdf
NO, those were the IGNITERS that were ADJACENT to the test cell to simulate how the fire NEXT to a workstation would set the TEST WORKSTATION on fire.
See figures 3.7 a to f for how the igniter was used.
Arthur
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
In addition, the test environment used 2 hydrocarbon spray burners heating the test chamber during the peak temperatures.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5C.pdf
NO, those were the IGNITERS that were ADJACENT to the test cell to simulate how the fire NEXT to a workstation would set the TEST WORKSTATION on fire.
See figures 3.7 a to f for how the igniter was used.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 22 2006, 06:19 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 05:54 PM)
On page 124, describing the test, they state that the "near ceiling temps varied between 800 C and 1,100 C."
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
Now class, turn your page to 182 of the NIST final report...
"One of the largest column in the tower structure was immersed in a furnace at 1,100 C. Uninsulated, it took 13 min for the steel surface temperatures to reach 600 C, in the range where substancial loss of strength occurs."
Now class... If one test shows the office fires can generate temps of 1,100 C - and another test shows steel in a 1,100 C furnace reaches 600 C in 13 min - What do you think happened to the steel in the WTC which had a longer time over the fire???
tick tock, tick tock... Ding! times up.
If you said anything other than "The steel weakened due to the office fires" you must write 1,000 times on the black board:
"I am to dumb to have this discussion"
See you in about a week CTers!
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
Now class, turn your page to 182 of the NIST final report...
"One of the largest column in the tower structure was immersed in a furnace at 1,100 C. Uninsulated, it took 13 min for the steel surface temperatures to reach 600 C, in the range where substancial loss of strength occurs."
Now class... If one test shows the office fires can generate temps of 1,100 C - and another test shows steel in a 1,100 C furnace reaches 600 C in 13 min - What do you think happened to the steel in the WTC which had a longer time over the fire???
tick tock, tick tock... Ding! times up.
If you said anything other than "The steel weakened due to the office fires" you must write 1,000 times on the black board:
"I am to dumb to have this discussion"
See you in about a week CTers!
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 10:56 AM)
oops.
References please.
Posted at the same time Arthur realized he made a major error.
References please.
Posted at the same time Arthur realized he made a major error.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 10:59 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 22 2006, 06:19 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 05:54 PM)
On page 124, describing the test, they state that the "near ceiling temps varied between 800 C and 1,100 C."
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
Now class, turn your page to 182 of the NIST final report...
"One of the largest column in the tower structure was immersed in a furnace at 1,100 C. Uninsulated, it took 13 min for the steel surface temperatures to reach 600 C, in the range where substancial loss of strength occurs."
Now class... If one test shows the office fires can generate temps of 1,100 C - and another test shows steel in a 1,100 C furnace reaches 600 C in 13 min - What do you think happened to the steel in the WTC which had a longer time over the fire???
tick tock, tick tock... Ding! times up.
If you said anything other than "The steel weakened due to the office fires" you must write 1,000 times on the black board:
"I am to dumb to have this discussion"
See you in about a week CTers!
If you put steel in a furnace, you can even melt it. This does not change the fact the empirical evidence does not support the test experiments.
This was the temp of the air in a test envorinment, not the steel.
You're using this test instead of the actual temps of the WTC steel (as NIST said, no more than 650 C)? How is the test temp related to the melted steel in the rubble? The actual temps of the WTC steel are more relevant to the temps of the WTC steel, don't you think?
In other words, if NIST says the steel didn't get over 650 C, then how does the temp of air in a test environment mean a damn thing? You're ignoring the 650 C figure, in favor of a test temp which clearly (per NIST) had no relation to the actual temps.
Now class, turn your page to 182 of the NIST final report...
"One of the largest column in the tower structure was immersed in a furnace at 1,100 C. Uninsulated, it took 13 min for the steel surface temperatures to reach 600 C, in the range where substancial loss of strength occurs."
Now class... If one test shows the office fires can generate temps of 1,100 C - and another test shows steel in a 1,100 C furnace reaches 600 C in 13 min - What do you think happened to the steel in the WTC which had a longer time over the fire???
tick tock, tick tock... Ding! times up.
If you said anything other than "The steel weakened due to the office fires" you must write 1,000 times on the black board:
"I am to dumb to have this discussion"
See you in about a week CTers!
If you put steel in a furnace, you can even melt it. This does not change the fact the empirical evidence does not support the test experiments.
i like the billiard balls and the cross referencing with the siesmographs. good logic.
fire temperatures become completely moot in light of fall times.
fire temperatures become completely moot in light of fall times.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 22 2006, 03:18 PM)
i like the billiard balls and the cross referencing with the siesmographs. good logic.
fire temperatures become completely moot in light of fall times.
Anybody notice the collapse time of WTC 7
18 SECONDS.
Go to:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
The actual Seismic Data on WTC 7
Found here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010.../fact_sheet.htm
Of course the DURATION of WTC 2 is listed as only 8 seconds, which has forced a number of CT'ers to come up with some pretty WILD explanations as to how the towers fell at FASTER than free fall speeds, including our thread starter, AJ who claims they floors were SUCKED down by the vacuum created by the explosions)
Seismic data can be used to determine SOME things, but it can't tell you exactly how long it took the towers to fall.
Arthur
fire temperatures become completely moot in light of fall times.
Anybody notice the collapse time of WTC 7
18 SECONDS.
Go to:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
The actual Seismic Data on WTC 7
Found here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010.../fact_sheet.htm
Of course the DURATION of WTC 2 is listed as only 8 seconds, which has forced a number of CT'ers to come up with some pretty WILD explanations as to how the towers fell at FASTER than free fall speeds, including our thread starter, AJ who claims they floors were SUCKED down by the vacuum created by the explosions)
Seismic data can be used to determine SOME things, but it can't tell you exactly how long it took the towers to fall.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 10:36 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 22 2006, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 04:28 PM)
This is a graph of Schneibste's redicules computer program when you factor in the building. Does not come close to matching the near free fall collapse of the towers.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
Common Sense we are not dealing with a government agency such as NIST that Changes the variables until it matches the official conspiracy theory. This is basic high school physics so even you should even be able to comprehend the graph. If the laws of physics are not correct, please identify the problem.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
Common Sense we are not dealing with a government agency such as NIST that Changes the variables until it matches the official conspiracy theory. This is basic high school physics so even you should even be able to comprehend the graph. If the laws of physics are not correct, please identify the problem.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 07:30 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 22 2006, 03:18 PM)
i like the billiard balls and the cross referencing with the siesmographs. good logic.
fire temperatures become completely moot in light of fall times.
Anybody notice what they LEAVE OFF the CT site.
The collapse time of WTC 7
18 SECONDS.
Go to:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
But jump to the actual Seismic Data to see the missing data on WTC 7
Found here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010.../fact_sheet.htm
Of course the DURATION of WTC 2 is listed as only 8 seconds, which has forced a number of CT'ers to come up with some pretty WILD explanations as to how the towers fell at FASTER than free fall speeds, including our thread starter, AJ who claims they floors were SUCKED down by the vacuum created by the explosions)
Seismic data can be used to determine SOME things, but it can't tell you exactly how long it took the towers to fall.
Arthur
please explain the disparity between the seismic sigs vs. the fall times for tower seven vs. tower one or two using the most puffed up arthurese you can muster.
tower seven actually DID go into freefall, so why does it have a longer seismic duration? what was 'going on' for that period?
why did the 'crushing mass of the cap', not make a seismic spike at the 12 second-ish mark, having been seismically invisible for 2 seconds, or four seconds in the two cases of the north and south towers?
fire temperatures become completely moot in light of fall times.
Anybody notice what they LEAVE OFF the CT site.
The collapse time of WTC 7
18 SECONDS.
Go to:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
But jump to the actual Seismic Data to see the missing data on WTC 7
Found here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010.../fact_sheet.htm
Of course the DURATION of WTC 2 is listed as only 8 seconds, which has forced a number of CT'ers to come up with some pretty WILD explanations as to how the towers fell at FASTER than free fall speeds, including our thread starter, AJ who claims they floors were SUCKED down by the vacuum created by the explosions)
Seismic data can be used to determine SOME things, but it can't tell you exactly how long it took the towers to fall.
Arthur
please explain the disparity between the seismic sigs vs. the fall times for tower seven vs. tower one or two using the most puffed up arthurese you can muster.
tower seven actually DID go into freefall, so why does it have a longer seismic duration? what was 'going on' for that period?
why did the 'crushing mass of the cap', not make a seismic spike at the 12 second-ish mark, having been seismically invisible for 2 seconds, or four seconds in the two cases of the north and south towers?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 07:43 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 10:36 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 22 2006, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 04:28 PM)
This is a graph of Schneibste's redicules computer program when you factor in the building. Does not come close to matching the near free fall collapse of the towers.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
Common Sense we are not dealing with a government agency such as NIST that Changes the variables until it matches the official conspiracy theory. This is basic high school physics so even you should even be able to comprehend the graph. If the laws of physics are not correct, please identify the problem.
Don't you get it... How does your graph explain columns falling much faster than the building if the building is falling at free fall??
Are you that much of a moron that you think your graph is more correct than photographic evidence?
You're being bedazzled by graphs
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
Common Sense we are not dealing with a government agency such as NIST that Changes the variables until it matches the official conspiracy theory. This is basic high school physics so even you should even be able to comprehend the graph. If the laws of physics are not correct, please identify the problem.
Don't you get it... How does your graph explain columns falling much faster than the building if the building is falling at free fall??
Are you that much of a moron that you think your graph is more correct than photographic evidence?
You're being bedazzled by graphs
QUOTE (newton+Feb 22 2006, 03:46 PM)
please explain the disparity between the seismic sigs vs. the fall times for tower seven vs. tower one or two using the most puffed up arthurese you can muster.
tower seven actually DID go into freefall, so why does it have a longer seismic duration? what was 'going on' for that period?
why did the 'crushing mass of the cap', not make a seismic spike at the 12 second-ish mark, having been seismically invisible for 2 seconds, or four seconds in the two cases of the north and south towers?
Newt,
Having spent some time trying to understand seismic data concerning the crash of flight 93 and having been in an extended discussion with a seismologist on said crash (did it hit as one piece ==> answer YES, was there a sonic boom prior to crash ==> answer NO) what I found out was IF YOU ARE NOT A SEISMOLOGIST these sqiggles, timing and waves mean NOTHING.
You (meaning you or I) CAN NOT deduce how long it took the towers to collapse from the duration of the signals.
Feel free to contact a SEISMOLOGIST to see if I'm pulling your leg.
Arthur
tower seven actually DID go into freefall, so why does it have a longer seismic duration? what was 'going on' for that period?
why did the 'crushing mass of the cap', not make a seismic spike at the 12 second-ish mark, having been seismically invisible for 2 seconds, or four seconds in the two cases of the north and south towers?
Newt,
Having spent some time trying to understand seismic data concerning the crash of flight 93 and having been in an extended discussion with a seismologist on said crash (did it hit as one piece ==> answer YES, was there a sonic boom prior to crash ==> answer NO) what I found out was IF YOU ARE NOT A SEISMOLOGIST these sqiggles, timing and waves mean NOTHING.
You (meaning you or I) CAN NOT deduce how long it took the towers to collapse from the duration of the signals.
Feel free to contact a SEISMOLOGIST to see if I'm pulling your leg.
Arthur
Simple, easy, and obvious, fauxie- all they need to do is follow the clues in your posts. Look at the response from the hardware. It's all right out there in public. Who the hell has $50K worth of hardware in front of their home 'Net connection? What's all that *** FOR, anyway? What are you doing with all that? There's no lookup to it, but you've got a static IP address. No public site behind it, and a web proxy and cache server that can handle millions of hits per day. Where's all the traffic coming from that you need all that hardware for, fauxie? Wanna tell me that? I bet you don't.
And there's no difference between the spam, and your posts on this thread; all you want is clicks on a web site. That's all you're about: MONEY.
And there's no difference between the spam, and your posts on this thread; all you want is clicks on a web site. That's all you're about: MONEY.
You want physics?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
No one has anything but hand waving for this.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
No one has anything but hand waving for this.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 11:47 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 07:43 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 10:36 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 22 2006, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 04:28 PM)
This is a graph of Schneibste's redicules computer program when you factor in the building. Does not come close to matching the near free fall collapse of the towers.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
Common Sense we are not dealing with a government agency such as NIST that Changes the variables until it matches the official conspiracy theory. This is basic high school physics so even you should even be able to comprehend the graph. If the laws of physics are not correct, please identify the problem.
Don't you get it... How does your graph explain columns falling much faster than the building if the building is falling at free fall??
Are you that much of a moron that you think your graph is more correct than photographic evidence?
You're being bedazzled by graphs
You don’t get it. The graph only proves the gravity driven hypothesis is not possible. What actually happened is open for an honest debate.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
Common Sense we are not dealing with a government agency such as NIST that Changes the variables until it matches the official conspiracy theory. This is basic high school physics so even you should even be able to comprehend the graph. If the laws of physics are not correct, please identify the problem.
Don't you get it... How does your graph explain columns falling much faster than the building if the building is falling at free fall??
Are you that much of a moron that you think your graph is more correct than photographic evidence?
You're being bedazzled by graphs
You don’t get it. The graph only proves the gravity driven hypothesis is not possible. What actually happened is open for an honest debate.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 07:58 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 11:47 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 07:43 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 10:36 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 22 2006, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 04:28 PM)
This is a graph of Schneibste's redicules computer program when you factor in the building. Does not come close to matching the near free fall collapse of the towers.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
Common Sense we are not dealing with a government agency such as NIST that Changes the variables until it matches the official conspiracy theory. This is basic high school physics so even you should even be able to comprehend the graph. If the laws of physics are not correct, please identify the problem.
Don't you get it... How does your graph explain columns falling much faster than the building if the building is falling at free fall??
Are you that much of a moron that you think your graph is more correct than photographic evidence?
You're being bedazzled by graphs
You don’t get it. The graph only proves the gravity driven hypothesis is not posable. What actually happened is open for an honest debate.
My photograph proves you're a moron for believing the graph.
I see you can't answer the question, How does steel outside of the building travel faster than the building if the building is traveling at free fall? *Crickets*
My photograph proves you're a moron for believing the graph.
I see you can't answer the question, How does steel outside of the building travel faster than the building if the building is traveling at free fall? *Crickets*
I retract my statement that even you could understand the graph.
My photograph proves you're a moron for believing the graph.
I see you can't answer the question, How does steel outside of the building travel faster than the building if the building is traveling at free fall? *Crickets*
I retract my statement that even you could understand the graph.
I take that as a compliment. I usually don't understand nonsense. You on the other hand...
Still waiting...
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
Common Sense we are not dealing with a government agency such as NIST that Changes the variables until it matches the official conspiracy theory. This is basic high school physics so even you should even be able to comprehend the graph. If the laws of physics are not correct, please identify the problem.
Don't you get it... How does your graph explain columns falling much faster than the building if the building is falling at free fall??
Are you that much of a moron that you think your graph is more correct than photographic evidence?
You're being bedazzled by graphs
You don’t get it. The graph only proves the gravity driven hypothesis is not posable. What actually happened is open for an honest debate.
My photograph proves you're a moron for believing the graph.
I see you can't answer the question, How does steel outside of the building travel faster than the building if the building is traveling at free fall? *Crickets*
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 11:59 AM)
My photograph proves you're a moron for believing the graph.
I see you can't answer the question, How does steel outside of the building travel faster than the building if the building is traveling at free fall? *Crickets*
I retract my statement that even you could understand the graph.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 08:04 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 11:59 AM)
My photograph proves you're a moron for believing the graph.
I see you can't answer the question, How does steel outside of the building travel faster than the building if the building is traveling at free fall? *Crickets*
I retract my statement that even you could understand the graph.
I take that as a compliment. I usually don't understand nonsense. You on the other hand...
QUOTE
I see you can't answer the question, How does steel outside of the building travel faster than the building if the building is traveling at free fall? *Crickets*
Still waiting...
Know what's amusing about those graphs? They don't get the same results as my program did. Gee, I wonder why that is? Got any source code for that bulls**t you're promulgating? Nawww, I didn't think so. And if you do it's probably in freaking COBOL. What an idiot.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 07:58 PM)
You want physics?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
No one has anything but hand waving for this.
Yeah, this shut AJ up too. So much for the pretty graph..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
No one has anything but hand waving for this.
Yeah, this shut AJ up too. So much for the pretty graph..
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 02:59 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2006, 10:56 AM)
oops.
References please.
Posted at the same time Arthur realized he made a major error.
I responded thinking you were referring to the NIST FINAL report (like the last bunch of posts). I then saw that you were linking to the Sub-Report on Single Office Workstations.
I removed my response once I realized it wasn't applicable to the document you were referencing and replaced it with one that WAS applicable.
You might call this a MAJOR ERROR, but in the end, the only person WRONG was you.
Arthur
References please.
Posted at the same time Arthur realized he made a major error.
I responded thinking you were referring to the NIST FINAL report (like the last bunch of posts). I then saw that you were linking to the Sub-Report on Single Office Workstations.
I removed my response once I realized it wasn't applicable to the document you were referencing and replaced it with one that WAS applicable.
You might call this a MAJOR ERROR, but in the end, the only person WRONG was you.
Arthur
QUOTE The pic below of the squib looks mysterious at first sight. If you watch the north tower collapse, you'll notice that the antenna tower falls first, which was connected to the inner core. The inner core of the building was actually falling ahead of the perimeter. If you look at video and still photos carefully, you can actually follow the collapse of the core and floors by noting the fire that passes by the windows on the way down. The collapsing inner section appears to be as much as a dozen floors ahead of the collapsing perimeter.
I replied
So NIST was definitely wrong with their collapse initiation scenario, since the walls could not have acted inwards on the columns if they were already a dozen floors below the collapse. Back to the drawing board for all those experts - again.
I love it, someone makes a CLAIM but with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
So I and others ask for LINKS to the pictures and videos that support these claims, and even though none are provided, the next post out of Gordon is:
So NIST was definitely wrong with their collapse initiation scenario,
It would appear that you are using abbreviated quotations in order to give an emphasis which your observation does not merit.
If my statement is incorrect then you will have no difficulty in explaining exactly how it would be possible for the floors to pull inwards on the perimeter columns, if they had already collapsed and were a dozen stories below those columns.
If you continue to support the theory that Nist postulate, which is that the floors exerted a force on the columns and this action was a prerequisite for collapse, then you must disagree with any theory which has as a part, any prior disconnection of those floors and columns, through which the force acted. Or you can attempt to show how a force was transmitted between the already falling floors and the columns.
My post was a basic statement of logic. Either the floors disconnected and fell before collapse rendering them unable to thereafter exert a force on the columns or they did not.
I do not think you will be able to supply any other possibilities other than those outlined.
I do not think you will be able to defeat the logic of the statement.
I do not think that you will be able to provide any supporting arguments for the point you have attempted to make.
G
Schneibster
Good to see you back and my apologies for the lack of response.
As you could probably tell I was out of the loop for a while and upon returning I noted your absence.
However, with the work that I have been doing specifically with BZ I have formulated some work which may make our previous discussions moot. With your permission I will pm a copy to you (about 20 pages) I don't want to go public for the present since its quite new and needs other eyes. Its up to you what you do with it, comment, send it to trash, whatever, but I would ask that you not go too public with it as yet. It will be posted in due course.
Oh and, I couldn't send spam e-mail if my life depended on it. Do they use FORTRAN?
Gordon.
I replied
So NIST was definitely wrong with their collapse initiation scenario, since the walls could not have acted inwards on the columns if they were already a dozen floors below the collapse. Back to the drawing board for all those experts - again.
I love it, someone makes a CLAIM but with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
So I and others ask for LINKS to the pictures and videos that support these claims, and even though none are provided, the next post out of Gordon is:
So NIST was definitely wrong with their collapse initiation scenario,
It would appear that you are using abbreviated quotations in order to give an emphasis which your observation does not merit.
If my statement is incorrect then you will have no difficulty in explaining exactly how it would be possible for the floors to pull inwards on the perimeter columns, if they had already collapsed and were a dozen stories below those columns.
If you continue to support the theory that Nist postulate, which is that the floors exerted a force on the columns and this action was a prerequisite for collapse, then you must disagree with any theory which has as a part, any prior disconnection of those floors and columns, through which the force acted. Or you can attempt to show how a force was transmitted between the already falling floors and the columns.
My post was a basic statement of logic. Either the floors disconnected and fell before collapse rendering them unable to thereafter exert a force on the columns or they did not.
I do not think you will be able to supply any other possibilities other than those outlined.
I do not think you will be able to defeat the logic of the statement.
I do not think that you will be able to provide any supporting arguments for the point you have attempted to make.
G
Schneibster
Good to see you back and my apologies for the lack of response.
As you could probably tell I was out of the loop for a while and upon returning I noted your absence.
However, with the work that I have been doing specifically with BZ I have formulated some work which may make our previous discussions moot. With your permission I will pm a copy to you (about 20 pages) I don't want to go public for the present since its quite new and needs other eyes. Its up to you what you do with it, comment, send it to trash, whatever, but I would ask that you not go too public with it as yet. It will be posted in due course.
Oh and, I couldn't send spam e-mail if my life depended on it. Do they use FORTRAN?
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 06:19 PM)
It would appear that you are using abbreviated quotations in order to give an emphasis which your observation does not merit.
If my statement is incorrect then you will have no difficulty in explaining exactly how it would be possible for the floors to pull inwards on the perimeter columns, if they had already collapsed and were a dozen stories below those columns.
Gordon,
Do you have problems comprehending the written word?
I asked for PROOF that the core was collapsing a dozen floors below the perimeter.
You on the other hand, without any proof at all, IMMEDIATELY CLAIMED the NIST SCENARIO was wrong.
If you meant that "IF THIS IS TRUE THEN NIST IS DEFINITELY WRONG" that's what you should have written.
As to the other points, I find no sense debating what has YET to be proven.
Arthur
If my statement is incorrect then you will have no difficulty in explaining exactly how it would be possible for the floors to pull inwards on the perimeter columns, if they had already collapsed and were a dozen stories below those columns.
Gordon,
Do you have problems comprehending the written word?
I asked for PROOF that the core was collapsing a dozen floors below the perimeter.
You on the other hand, without any proof at all, IMMEDIATELY CLAIMED the NIST SCENARIO was wrong.
If you meant that "IF THIS IS TRUE THEN NIST IS DEFINITELY WRONG" that's what you should have written.
As to the other points, I find no sense debating what has YET to be proven.
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 22 2006, 10:19 PM)
Schneibster
Good to see you back and my apologies for the lack of response.
As you could probably tell I was out of the loop for a while and upon returning I noted your absence.
However, with the work that I have been doing specifically with BZ I have formulated some work which may make our previous discussions moot. With your permission I will pm a copy to you (about 20 pages) I don't want to go public for the present since its quite new and needs other eyes. Its up to you what you do with it, comment, send it to trash, whatever, but I would ask that you not go too public with it as yet. It will be posted in due course.
Oh and, I couldn't send spam e-mail if my life depended on it. Do they use FORTRAN?
Gordon.
Hi gordon, no, I don't think you had anything to do with it. I note that the strongest rhetoric and lying accompanies the individuals involved, and that you don't participate in that activity. It's fairly clear who stands to make money off this and who doesn't, based on how they behave.
You may PM the material to me, and I commit that I will not discuss it in public until you give permission. I'll send my comments back in return PM.
I figured with a big deal on the table you were probably busy, and didn't have time. I'm very interested in your findings, nascent or well-developed. It will be much more fruitful to hold a conversation with someone who is not only well schooled in technical matters, but capable of divorcing their opinions from their emotions.
Thanks for your response. I look forward to hearing from you.
Good to see you back and my apologies for the lack of response.
As you could probably tell I was out of the loop for a while and upon returning I noted your absence.
However, with the work that I have been doing specifically with BZ I have formulated some work which may make our previous discussions moot. With your permission I will pm a copy to you (about 20 pages) I don't want to go public for the present since its quite new and needs other eyes. Its up to you what you do with it, comment, send it to trash, whatever, but I would ask that you not go too public with it as yet. It will be posted in due course.
Oh and, I couldn't send spam e-mail if my life depended on it. Do they use FORTRAN?
Gordon.
Hi gordon, no, I don't think you had anything to do with it. I note that the strongest rhetoric and lying accompanies the individuals involved, and that you don't participate in that activity. It's fairly clear who stands to make money off this and who doesn't, based on how they behave.
You may PM the material to me, and I commit that I will not discuss it in public until you give permission. I'll send my comments back in return PM.
I figured with a big deal on the table you were probably busy, and didn't have time. I'm very interested in your findings, nascent or well-developed. It will be much more fruitful to hold a conversation with someone who is not only well schooled in technical matters, but capable of divorcing their opinions from their emotions.
Thanks for your response. I look forward to hearing from you.
Do you have problems comprehending the written word?
...................................
As to the other points, I find no sense debating what has YET to be proven.
When the written word contains sentiments like the above, incomprehension is a feeling I do get. Your logic is that you reserve your debates for that which has been proven. Why? What purpose does it serve to debate something if it has been proven or conversely, refuse to debate a point of contention?
Gordon.
...................................
As to the other points, I find no sense debating what has YET to be proven.
When the written word contains sentiments like the above, incomprehension is a feeling I do get. Your logic is that you reserve your debates for that which has been proven. Why? What purpose does it serve to debate something if it has been proven or conversely, refuse to debate a point of contention?
Gordon.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 07:59 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 07:58 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 11:47 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 07:43 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 22 2006, 10:36 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 22 2006, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2006, 04:28 PM)
This is a graph of Schneibste's redicules computer program when you factor in the building. Does not come close to matching the near free fall collapse of the towers.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
Common Sense we are not dealing with a government agency such as NIST that Changes the variables until it matches the official conspiracy theory. This is basic high school physics so even you should even be able to comprehend the graph. If the laws of physics are not correct, please identify the problem.
Don't you get it... How does your graph explain columns falling much faster than the building if the building is falling at free fall??
Are you that much of a moron that you think your graph is more correct than photographic evidence?
You're being bedazzled by graphs
You don’t get it. The graph only proves the gravity driven hypothesis is not posable. What actually happened is open for an honest debate.
My photograph proves you're a moron for believing the graph.
I see you can't answer the question, How does steel outside of the building travel faster than the building if the building is traveling at free fall? *Crickets*
The reason this graph shows such a long fall time is that it assumes that each floor collapsed onto the next lower floor and came to a stop before continuing.
Foxx, reasonwhy, newt, et al can believe the interpretation of the graph that the author promulgates but it is malarkey.
Free fall for 3.7 meters(height of one floor) is 0.8689 seconds
110 floors X 0.8689 seconds = 95.6 seconds.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3
Yep, I'd say you're right there reasonwhy. It certainly puts an end to the Schneibsters obfuscations about fall-times. Easily understood graphs which make it perfectly clear that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at those speeds due to gravity-driven events. Great documentation. Thanks.
And yet heres a photo of columns falling much faster than the building and the debris cloud which is also falling faster than the building...
Your amasing computer graph is no match for photographic evidence. I suggest going back to the computer and correcting the obvious errors.
Common Sense we are not dealing with a government agency such as NIST that Changes the variables until it matches the official conspiracy theory. This is basic high school physics so even you should even be able to comprehend the graph. If the laws of physics are not correct, please identify the problem.
Don't you get it... How does your graph explain columns falling much faster than the building if the building is falling at free fall??
Are you that much of a moron that you think your graph is more correct than photographic evidence?
You're being bedazzled by graphs
You don’t get it. The graph only proves the gravity driven hypothesis is not posable. What actually happened is open for an honest debate.
My photograph proves you're a moron for believing the graph.
I see you can't answer the question, How does steel outside of the building travel faster than the building if the building is traveling at free fall? *Crickets*
The reason this graph shows such a long fall time is that it assumes that each floor collapsed onto the next lower floor and came to a stop before continuing.
Foxx, reasonwhy, newt, et al can believe the interpretation of the graph that the author promulgates but it is malarkey.
Free fall for 3.7 meters(height of one floor) is 0.8689 seconds
110 floors X 0.8689 seconds = 95.6 seconds.
Gordon,
Debate the CAUSE for something that has been PROVEN to have occured.
Arthur
Debate the CAUSE for something that has been PROVEN to have occured.
Arthur
The Laboratoire européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020, now estimates to over 80% the probability that the week of March 20-26, 2006 will be the beginning of the most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929. This last week of March 2006 will be the turning-point of a number of critical developments, resulting in an acceleration of all the factors leading to a major crisis, disregard any American or Israeli military intervention against Iran. In case such an intervention is conducted, the probability of a major crisis to start rises up to 100%, according to LEAP/E2020.
An Alarm based on 2 verifiable events
The announcement of this crisis results from the analysis of decisions taken by the two key-actors of the main on-going international crisis, i.e. the United States and Iran:
- on the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, available to all oil producers of the region;
- on the other hand, there is the decision of the American Federal Reserve to stop publishing M3 figures (the most reliable indicator on the amount of dollars circulating in the world) from March 23, 2006 onward.
These two decisions constitute altogether the indicators, the causes and the consequences of the historical transition in progress between the order created after World War II and the new international equilibrium in gestation since the collapse of the USSR. Their magnitude as much as their simultaneity will catalyse all the tensions, weaknesses and imbalances accumulated since more than a decade throughout the international system.
...
LEAP/E2020 anticipate that these two non-official decisions will involve the United States and the world in a monetary, financial, and soon economic crisis without precedent on a planetary scale. The ‘monetarisation’ of the US debt is indeed a very technical term describing a catastrophically simple reality: the United States undertake not to refund their debt, or more exactly to refund it in "monkey currency". LEAP/E2020 also anticipate that the process will accelerate at the end of March, in coincidence with the launching of the Iranian Oil Bourse, which can only precipitate the sales of US Treasury Bonds by their non-American holders.
link
An Alarm based on 2 verifiable events
The announcement of this crisis results from the analysis of decisions taken by the two key-actors of the main on-going international crisis, i.e. the United States and Iran:
- on the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, available to all oil producers of the region;
- on the other hand, there is the decision of the American Federal Reserve to stop publishing M3 figures (the most reliable indicator on the amount of dollars circulating in the world) from March 23, 2006 onward.
These two decisions constitute altogether the indicators, the causes and the consequences of the historical transition in progress between the order created after World War II and the new international equilibrium in gestation since the collapse of the USSR. Their magnitude as much as their simultaneity will catalyse all the tensions, weaknesses and imbalances accumulated since more than a decade throughout the international system.
...
LEAP/E2020 anticipate that these two non-official decisions will involve the United States and the world in a monetary, financial, and soon economic crisis without precedent on a planetary scale. The ‘monetarisation’ of the US debt is indeed a very technical term describing a catastrophically simple reality: the United States undertake not to refund their debt, or more exactly to refund it in "monkey currency". LEAP/E2020 also anticipate that the process will accelerate at the end of March, in coincidence with the launching of the Iranian Oil Bourse, which can only precipitate the sales of US Treasury Bonds by their non-American holders.
link
Gordon,
Debate the CAUSE for something that has been PROVEN to have occured.
Arthur
Should we call this a 1-1 draw. (tie)
Gordon.
Debate the CAUSE for something that has been PROVEN to have occured.
Arthur
Should we call this a 1-1 draw. (tie)
Gordon.
When should we start speaking about how incorrect this is? On March 27th or should we wait until April Fool's day?
Now back to the discussion of 9/11 and the physics thereof.
Thanks for stopping by frater.
Now back to the discussion of 9/11 and the physics thereof.
Thanks for stopping by frater.
CONCLUSIONS
So far we have come to the following conclusions:
1. The government’s assertion that the so-called hijackers operated without being
detected by official surveillance is untenable, and evidence is strong that the
alleged hijackers acted in coordination with a faction within the government itself.
The hijackers were therefore in all probability expendable double agents or, more
bluntly, patsies.
2. The government’s assertion that the four supposedly hijacked airliners were taken
over and piloted by the four accused hijackers identified by the FBI is at or
beyond the limits of physical and technical reality. The planes were in all
probability guided to their targets by some form of remote access or remote
control.
3. The government’s assertion that the failures of air defense were caused by the fog
of war is lame and absurd. Air defense was in all probability sabotaged by moles
operating inside the government.
4. The government’s assertion that a Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon is physically
impossible. Some other type of flying object, possibly a cruise missile, must
therefore be considered.
5. The government’s assertion that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center
collapsed as a result of the impact of aircraft and of the subsequent fire is
physically impossible. The fall of the towers cannot be explained without the
hypothesis of controlled demolition of some form, possibly including
unconventional methods employing new physical principles.
6. The government’s assertion that World Trade Center 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM EDT
on September 11 purely as a result of fire is physically impossible. The collapse
of WTC 7 is coherent with controlled demolition of the conventional type.
7. The government’s assertion that United Flight 93 crashed because of actions by
the hijackers or because of a struggle in the cockpit is physically impossible,
given the pattern in which the wreckage was distributed. All evidence points
towards the hypothesis that United 93 was shot down by US military aircraft.
8. The government’s refusal to investigate insider trading in American Airlines and
United Airlines put options, the wholesale seizure and destruction of evidence, the
systematic intimidation of witnesses by the FBI, and a series of other incidents
point unmistakably to an attempted coverup on the part of the entire US
government and establishment.
So far we have come to the following conclusions:
1. The government’s assertion that the so-called hijackers operated without being
detected by official surveillance is untenable, and evidence is strong that the
alleged hijackers acted in coordination with a faction within the government itself.
The hijackers were therefore in all probability expendable double agents or, more
bluntly, patsies.
2. The government’s assertion that the four supposedly hijacked airliners were taken
over and piloted by the four accused hijackers identified by the FBI is at or
beyond the limits of physical and technical reality. The planes were in all
probability guided to their targets by some form of remote access or remote
control.
3. The government’s assertion that the failures of air defense were caused by the fog
of war is lame and absurd. Air defense was in all probability sabotaged by moles
operating inside the government.
4. The government’s assertion that a Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon is physically
impossible. Some other type of flying object, possibly a cruise missile, must
therefore be considered.
5. The government’s assertion that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center
collapsed as a result of the impact of aircraft and of the subsequent fire is
physically impossible. The fall of the towers cannot be explained without the
hypothesis of controlled demolition of some form, possibly including
unconventional methods employing new physical principles.
6. The government’s assertion that World Trade Center 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM EDT
on September 11 purely as a result of fire is physically impossible. The collapse
of WTC 7 is coherent with controlled demolition of the conventional type.
7. The government’s assertion that United Flight 93 crashed because of actions by
the hijackers or because of a struggle in the cockpit is physically impossible,
given the pattern in which the wreckage was distributed. All evidence points
towards the hypothesis that United 93 was shot down by US military aircraft.
8. The government’s refusal to investigate insider trading in American Airlines and
United Airlines put options, the wholesale seizure and destruction of evidence, the
systematic intimidation of witnesses by the FBI, and a series of other incidents
point unmistakably to an attempted coverup on the part of the entire US
government and establishment.
In the early 1960's the CIA began a project in Italy called the Centro Mondiale Commerciale* (the World Trade Center). It was originally formed in Montreal, then moved to Italy. Among it's board of directors was Clay Shaw, infamous CIA figure detailed in Oliver Stone's movie "JFK". In elegant headquarters in Rome and Geneva, they announced to the world the great role they would play in world trade. The board also consisted of far-right wing ex-fascisti and Nazis involved in petroleum and armaments.
original link
911 playing cards
original link
911 playing cards
The janedoe graphs also show that if the floors pancaked every tenth floor that this would give a time equal to the actual collapse time.
This is playing with the numbers as once again it requires that each ten floor block comes to a stop before proceeding thus 0.869 X 11 = 9.55 seconds
Note that the author uses the height of 1368 feet for the building. That gives a height of 12.4 feet for each floor. The author also uses 32.2 ft/s^2 for g
Thus , since I was rounding off and using 3.7 meters and 9.8 m/s^2 there is a slight difference in the times.
Using the author's constants
Free fall time between floors of 12.4 feet in height is 0.879 seconds
110 X 0.879 = 96.7 seconds for a pancake at each floor in which the falling debris all comes to a stop first before proceeding.
11 X 0.879 = 9.67 seconds for eleven ten story blocks doing the same.
Now all that author has to do is find a building that is shown to have collapsed in that fashion and the graph will match, but the video evidence demonstrates that no buildings in Manhattan on 9/11/01 did.
This is playing with the numbers as once again it requires that each ten floor block comes to a stop before proceeding thus 0.869 X 11 = 9.55 seconds
Note that the author uses the height of 1368 feet for the building. That gives a height of 12.4 feet for each floor. The author also uses 32.2 ft/s^2 for g
Thus , since I was rounding off and using 3.7 meters and 9.8 m/s^2 there is a slight difference in the times.
Using the author's constants
Free fall time between floors of 12.4 feet in height is 0.879 seconds
110 X 0.879 = 96.7 seconds for a pancake at each floor in which the falling debris all comes to a stop first before proceeding.
11 X 0.879 = 9.67 seconds for eleven ten story blocks doing the same.
Now all that author has to do is find a building that is shown to have collapsed in that fashion and the graph will match, but the video evidence demonstrates that no buildings in Manhattan on 9/11/01 did.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.