QUOTE (newton+Feb 23 2006, 07:04 PM)
oh yeah, and regarding the 'underground fires'. no.
the temperatures were the highest immediately following the collapse, and cooled gradually. this does not reflect the behaviour of a chaotic underground fire, which would die down and flare up randomly as fuel was first covered with soot, and then alternatively cleared of soot as the decreased size of the fuel would cause shifting in the dbris pile, and expose new areas of yummy fuel for the fire.
once again, this is not what is observed. the most extreme temperatures are after the collapse, and the cooling steady and gradual.
there are no reports of the debris pile changing size or shape, which is something that would definitely happen if the main supports of the 'structure', ie. the steel, was randomly becoming molten and losing strentgh.
so, no change in the debris pile, equals COOLING of a STATIC MASS.
now, the REAL question is, does this make the 'debunkers',
a. more vile
b. more ludicrous
c. other
look down for the answers.
So let's see if we can pin you down on some things, heh newton?
(1) ".....the most extreme temperatures are after the collapse, and the cooling steady and gradual.
Is THAT why Foxx says that PYROCOOL had to be sprayed on the pile even AFTER weeks of WATER? Because the fires/piles 'cooled' on their little lonesomes? Is that why the fireman after weeks of these water/pyrocool spray said that some parts were STILL like roaring furnaces? Mate, you should drop better-quality 'acid'. The stuff you're on is not reality-friendly. Just ask Foxx, it's HIS words you're contradicting.
(2) "....chaotic underground fire, which would die down and flare up randomly as fuel was first covered with soot, and then alternatively cleared of soot as the decreased size of the fuel would cause shifting in the dbris pile, and expose new areas of yummy fuel for the fire.
Which is EXACTLY whar WOULD happen in ANY 'bonfire' dust-covered piles such as the WTC rubble piles. Thanks for agreeing with the expalnation already given.
(3) "....there are no reports of the debris pile changing size or shape, which is something that would definitely happen if the main supports of the 'structure', ie. the steel, was randomly becoming molten and losing strentgh.
- Someone quoted by CTers said that the pile was STILL SETTLING after six weeks!
- And JUST EXACTLY! there was NO melted steel rivers. Which is why the pile only settles as fuel packed between the non-combustible steel etc burns and shifts. That whole remaining incombustible Thermal Mass was STILL a 'settling pile' and not a sea of slag. And the fires were random and varied depending on local conditions aeration etc. What would you expect, 'perfectly placed' arrangements? Poor newton. Witty but witless. What a tragedy for humankind!
************
Get a grip, newton; your unscientific and doubtless politically-driven bias is 'soaking the floor', along with your incompetent and irrelevant drivelling. You are ANOTHER liability to Foxx's agenda here. He can't afford any more 'helpers' like you and galdur and JamesX et al just now...he is at odds with other CTers who at least appear to be SANE, if only grudgingly fair minded.
RC.
.
the temperatures were the highest immediately following the collapse, and cooled gradually. this does not reflect the behaviour of a chaotic underground fire, which would die down and flare up randomly as fuel was first covered with soot, and then alternatively cleared of soot as the decreased size of the fuel would cause shifting in the dbris pile, and expose new areas of yummy fuel for the fire.
once again, this is not what is observed. the most extreme temperatures are after the collapse, and the cooling steady and gradual.
there are no reports of the debris pile changing size or shape, which is something that would definitely happen if the main supports of the 'structure', ie. the steel, was randomly becoming molten and losing strentgh.
so, no change in the debris pile, equals COOLING of a STATIC MASS.
now, the REAL question is, does this make the 'debunkers',
a. more vile
b. more ludicrous
c. other
look down for the answers.
So let's see if we can pin you down on some things, heh newton?
(1) ".....the most extreme temperatures are after the collapse, and the cooling steady and gradual.
Is THAT why Foxx says that PYROCOOL had to be sprayed on the pile even AFTER weeks of WATER? Because the fires/piles 'cooled' on their little lonesomes? Is that why the fireman after weeks of these water/pyrocool spray said that some parts were STILL like roaring furnaces? Mate, you should drop better-quality 'acid'. The stuff you're on is not reality-friendly. Just ask Foxx, it's HIS words you're contradicting.
(2) "....chaotic underground fire, which would die down and flare up randomly as fuel was first covered with soot, and then alternatively cleared of soot as the decreased size of the fuel would cause shifting in the dbris pile, and expose new areas of yummy fuel for the fire.
Which is EXACTLY whar WOULD happen in ANY 'bonfire' dust-covered piles such as the WTC rubble piles. Thanks for agreeing with the expalnation already given.
(3) "....there are no reports of the debris pile changing size or shape, which is something that would definitely happen if the main supports of the 'structure', ie. the steel, was randomly becoming molten and losing strentgh.
- Someone quoted by CTers said that the pile was STILL SETTLING after six weeks!
- And JUST EXACTLY! there was NO melted steel rivers. Which is why the pile only settles as fuel packed between the non-combustible steel etc burns and shifts. That whole remaining incombustible Thermal Mass was STILL a 'settling pile' and not a sea of slag. And the fires were random and varied depending on local conditions aeration etc. What would you expect, 'perfectly placed' arrangements? Poor newton. Witty but witless. What a tragedy for humankind!
************
Get a grip, newton; your unscientific and doubtless politically-driven bias is 'soaking the floor', along with your incompetent and irrelevant drivelling. You are ANOTHER liability to Foxx's agenda here. He can't afford any more 'helpers' like you and galdur and JamesX et al just now...he is at odds with other CTers who at least appear to be SANE, if only grudgingly fair minded.
RC.
.
QUOTE (brian+Feb 23 2006, 10:35 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 23 2006, 10:15 PM)
"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."
NB - reasonable doubt.
Believing in supersonic jet fuel, HOT CRUNCHES, Ju Jitsu moves that arrest upper portions of buildings, amazing bellows and other tales from the far side, does not constitute reasonable doubt.
Still, if the official conspiracy theory was not so far off the wall there would not be the need for the hilarious contortions described above - otherwise known as bullshit.
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
Worth posting twice a day.
Others can make up their own mind as to where the drivel comes from.
Dr Griffin does not mention supersonic fuel, HOT CRUNCHES etc - I wonder why?
Brian,
this explains a lot. Are you 'Griffin' HIMSELF doing the 'publicity/pimping' shuffle on all the CT sites? Are you 'related' and/or associated in any way with Griffin? Are you in fact as mindless an idiot stooge as you have proved yourself to be in these threads? That would explain a lot, brian.
Pity I myself have no non-physics barrow to push, or you could have retaliated by calling me a shill etc., heh brian?
Gerrooorrrff, idiot. Foxx has enough troubles with reality just come up to bite him in the butt, without YOU helping to prolong his agony. Self-proven stooge, brian....that's how everyone at Physorg will always remember you, hehehe.
Cheers nonetheless, mate. See if you can buy back your soul someday, mate....it might make up for the wasted years in the stupidity/criminality wilderness.
RC.
.
NB - reasonable doubt.
Believing in supersonic jet fuel, HOT CRUNCHES, Ju Jitsu moves that arrest upper portions of buildings, amazing bellows and other tales from the far side, does not constitute reasonable doubt.
Still, if the official conspiracy theory was not so far off the wall there would not be the need for the hilarious contortions described above - otherwise known as bullshit.
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
Worth posting twice a day.
Others can make up their own mind as to where the drivel comes from.
Dr Griffin does not mention supersonic fuel, HOT CRUNCHES etc - I wonder why?
Brian,
this explains a lot. Are you 'Griffin' HIMSELF doing the 'publicity/pimping' shuffle on all the CT sites? Are you 'related' and/or associated in any way with Griffin? Are you in fact as mindless an idiot stooge as you have proved yourself to be in these threads? That would explain a lot, brian.
Pity I myself have no non-physics barrow to push, or you could have retaliated by calling me a shill etc., heh brian?
Gerrooorrrff, idiot. Foxx has enough troubles with reality just come up to bite him in the butt, without YOU helping to prolong his agony. Self-proven stooge, brian....that's how everyone at Physorg will always remember you, hehehe.
Cheers nonetheless, mate. See if you can buy back your soul someday, mate....it might make up for the wasted years in the stupidity/criminality wilderness.
RC.
.
well, RC, it pains me to wound your intellectual pride, but, the facts are there.
the satellite images show the heat distribution.
the pile did not deform or change shape afterwards.
the molten steel is a fact generally accepted by BOTH sides(although repeated attempts to belittle or deny it are VERY SURPRISING coming from such 'level-headed' individuals(think boris karloff)).
now, if the debris pile was feeding on it's own structural support with increasing temperatures, and gradually diminishing mass as solids turned to gases, then it would HAVE to change shape.
since, it this behaviour has never been mentioned, and in fact the clean-up started right away, then we can determine that the towers fell into a certain shape, and then retained that shape.
anything which was instantly turned molten by the thermite, or the fusion bomb, or the particle beams from outer-space, would not offer any support to the settled debris pile, and would simply flow to the lowest points available through the stronger, cooler beams which were supporting the debris pile.
it would then sit where it landed and begin cooling., and the debris pile would not change it's shape.
oh, yeah, and, what i'm saying doesn't contradict my good friend foxx, at all. only in your vivid imagination.
p.s. i don't like your tone anymore, LOL.
the satellite images show the heat distribution.
the pile did not deform or change shape afterwards.
the molten steel is a fact generally accepted by BOTH sides(although repeated attempts to belittle or deny it are VERY SURPRISING coming from such 'level-headed' individuals(think boris karloff)).
now, if the debris pile was feeding on it's own structural support with increasing temperatures, and gradually diminishing mass as solids turned to gases, then it would HAVE to change shape.
since, it this behaviour has never been mentioned, and in fact the clean-up started right away, then we can determine that the towers fell into a certain shape, and then retained that shape.
anything which was instantly turned molten by the thermite, or the fusion bomb, or the particle beams from outer-space, would not offer any support to the settled debris pile, and would simply flow to the lowest points available through the stronger, cooler beams which were supporting the debris pile.
it would then sit where it landed and begin cooling., and the debris pile would not change it's shape.
oh, yeah, and, what i'm saying doesn't contradict my good friend foxx, at all. only in your vivid imagination.
p.s. i don't like your tone anymore, LOL.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 24 2006, 01:19 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 24 2006, 12:48 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 23 2006, 08:07 AM)
ooo. it hurts. wah.
so much hate.
sad.
Yes, but did it hurt ENOUGH to make you stop and think before you 'drivel wittily' all over these fora? That's the question, mate! Cheers!
RC.
.
thank you. i'm reborn through your benevolent influence.
well, i'd like to chat, but i have to work on my abs, AND cook dinner at the same time, so i'm thinking some of your 'hot crunches' are in order.
once again. thanks
Considering your abysmal ignorance of matters thermodynamical, I'm surprised you even know what 'hot' means? Are the fires cooling down yet?...or do you need more vast quantities of water and pyrocool, heh? Your wit won't save you, mate....it is no defence against ridicule fairly earned. LEARN from it, newton; learn from it. Then my time spent on your inanities would not have been in vain. You are no more use to Foxx now. He is fighting his own rearguard action against HIMSELF AND OTHER CTers. You will only add laughter to the poignancy. That would be too cruel, even to such as Foxx. Cheers and bon appetite!
PS: See if you can exercise your 'thought muscles' in preference to your abs...you might get better intellectual outcomes from the energy content of your dinner. Ciao.
RC.
.
I see you making this proclamation time after time, yet offering absolutely NO evidence to support this proclamation in ANY kind of quantitative way.
Would you care to provide that now?
The perimeter columns only have air resistence. Why isn't the building collapse keeping pace? The only answer is it has more resistance from other things. This is so simple a 2 year old could understand.
The ejecta which you point to as 'free-falling' was ejected PRIOR TO the demolition of the still-standing tower beside that 'free-falling' debris. It started it's downwards descent BEFORE the tower beside it had even been demolished. There is no reason WHY it SHOULD NOT be 'ahead' of the collapse of the intact structure.
You claim it was 20 stories AHEAD of structures (which AS OF THAT time) had not yet been 'exploded'.
Soooo... is this surprising?
They were falling at TRUE free-fall speeds, prior-to the demolitions of the intact structure which are at the same level. Obviously they are going to be further 'ahead' in the collapse sequence.
Now can someone, please show quantatively HOW a normal physics gravity-driven collapse can crush through solid objects at a speed so close to those free-falling debris sections?
I take it then Foxx that you disagree with Woods' showing that the cd would have to be at least 2.8 seconds in front of the gravity driven collapse?
That would require that any debris ejected higher up could not catch a CD sequence.
Nah, you like the crazy lady so you will simply say perhaps that you don't quite follow what she says or that you have some minute points on which you disagree with her.
Your senario is that CD follows the gravity driven falling debris that is outside the towers.
No, the video is at an extreme vertical angle and the vertical distance between the collapse point and the debris that is falling away cannot be determined. It certainly cannot be said that this video shows that the debris is above the collapse, especially in light of the FACT that no other videos taken at less of a vertical angle show that indeed the debris is ahead of the collapse.
Furthermore since this video shows neither the collapse initiation at the 81st(not the 75th) floor, nor the collapse moving through that mech level at the 31st I fail to see how this vid can show anything about the collapse times between those two floors or the time to collapse the last 25 floors.A few quick frames show large debris hitting the ground. That is NOT the final collapse of floors , it is the large debris that has been falling free away from the building, hitting the ground. Is that not obvious?
IF you cannot post qualifications equal to (or surpassing) the qualificatons of Ms. Wood's, why should we pay any attention to you at all ???
You shouldn't pay attention to any of MY work.
Which is why I haven't posted ANY.
However, when I show by your own words that you are a LYING or misquoting or distorting the truth, etc etc ad infinitum.
Well, THAT certainly doesn't take a PhD. now does it?
Mr "No Resistance isn't the same as Free Fall".
As to Dr Judy "Balls" Wood, if you look at her BIO it shows nothing relevant to what we are discussing, but I'm not dismissing her for that, Its her description of how the towers were blown that shows she's a MORON.
Arthur
No, the video is at an extreme vertical angle and the vertical distance between the collapse point and the debris that is falling away cannot be determined. It certainly cannot be said that this video shows that the debris is above the collapse, especially in light of the FACT that no other videos taken at less of a vertical angle show that indeed the debris is ahead of the collapse.
Furthermore since this video shows neither the collapse initiation at the 81st(not the 75th) floor, nor the collapse moving through that mech level at the 31st I fail to see how this vid can show anything about the collapse times between those two floors or the time to collapse the last 25 floors.A few quick frames show large debris hitting the ground. That is NOT the final collapse of floors , it is the large debris that has been falling free away from the building, hitting the ground. Is that not obvious?
It depends on what stage of the collapse you want to examine. Towards the end, the debris is ahead, but during the first 4 seconds the debris is clearly above the demolition wave in ALL videos.
so much hate.
sad.
Yes, but did it hurt ENOUGH to make you stop and think before you 'drivel wittily' all over these fora? That's the question, mate! Cheers!
RC.
.
thank you. i'm reborn through your benevolent influence.
well, i'd like to chat, but i have to work on my abs, AND cook dinner at the same time, so i'm thinking some of your 'hot crunches' are in order.
once again. thanks
Considering your abysmal ignorance of matters thermodynamical, I'm surprised you even know what 'hot' means? Are the fires cooling down yet?...or do you need more vast quantities of water and pyrocool, heh? Your wit won't save you, mate....it is no defence against ridicule fairly earned. LEARN from it, newton; learn from it. Then my time spent on your inanities would not have been in vain. You are no more use to Foxx now. He is fighting his own rearguard action against HIMSELF AND OTHER CTers. You will only add laughter to the poignancy. That would be too cruel, even to such as Foxx. Cheers and bon appetite!
PS: See if you can exercise your 'thought muscles' in preference to your abs...you might get better intellectual outcomes from the energy content of your dinner. Ciao.
RC.
.
learn from this.
when i said it hurt, i was being MASSIVELY sarcastic.
cheers!
when i said it hurt, i was being MASSIVELY sarcastic.
cheers!
DEMOLITION EVIDENCE
1. Squib 40-50 stories below collapse wave.
2. Demolition wave in advance of falling debris.
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/MIHOP
mpg video: http://www.unoriginal.co.uk/newvideos/911....L.CO.UK%20.mpeg
Note: Link seems to be broken.
1. Squib 40-50 stories below collapse wave.
2. Demolition wave in advance of falling debris.
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/MIHOP
mpg video: http://www.unoriginal.co.uk/newvideos/911....L.CO.UK%20.mpeg
Note: Link seems to be broken.
DEMOLITION EVIDENCE
QUOTE (newton+Feb 24 2006, 01:59 AM)
learn from this.
when i said it hurt, i was being MASSIVELY sarcastic.
cheers!
You also delude yourself if you truly think I wasn't playing on that very sarcasm and turning it back on you with my own. Obviously your comprehension of sarcasm from others is rivalled only by your incompetence and irrelevance in all you've done here so far. What a waste of a good mouth sans brains to operate it properly. Too bad. Still, there has to be an idiot in every crowd, and you merely make up for when your 'mates' are 'off shift' here. How is your 'idiot roster' arranged, by quantity or quality of 'witty drivel'? Don't matter, it's all to the same add effect. No physics and no thinking. I truly pitty you, newton...I can sense you could have been better than this. Waste, sheer waste. That's life, I guess...entropy will have it's way with some sooner than others. Good luck.
RC.
.
when i said it hurt, i was being MASSIVELY sarcastic.
cheers!
You also delude yourself if you truly think I wasn't playing on that very sarcasm and turning it back on you with my own. Obviously your comprehension of sarcasm from others is rivalled only by your incompetence and irrelevance in all you've done here so far. What a waste of a good mouth sans brains to operate it properly. Too bad. Still, there has to be an idiot in every crowd, and you merely make up for when your 'mates' are 'off shift' here. How is your 'idiot roster' arranged, by quantity or quality of 'witty drivel'? Don't matter, it's all to the same add effect. No physics and no thinking. I truly pitty you, newton...I can sense you could have been better than this. Waste, sheer waste. That's life, I guess...entropy will have it's way with some sooner than others. Good luck.
RC.
.
oh yeah? well....
'hot crunch' -Reality Check
'hot crunch' -Reality Check
QUOTE (newton+Feb 24 2006, 02:13 AM)
oh yeah? well....
'hot crunch' -Reality Check
I was wrong. You evidently CAN't do better than this. Sadder still, mate. Call me again when you grow up, mate. Cheers!
RC.
.
'hot crunch' -Reality Check
I was wrong. You evidently CAN't do better than this. Sadder still, mate. Call me again when you grow up, mate. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 24 2006, 02:05 AM)
DEMOLITION EVIDENCE
Hi hereward!
For those who insist that any 'pressure-driven smoke and debris laden air going down the core shafts would 'lose concentration' as it 'expands' into the floor areas ahead of the collapse front, I ask them to consider the OBVIOUS fluid (here 'gas') dynamics of the scenario....
A pressure 'front/flow' enters the floor space and pressurises that space so that air and smoke (which has had, by the time of collapse, an hour or more to penetrate into every 'open' shaft/floor escape route in the building) then is RE-CONCENTRATED into a pressure front/flow as it eventually attempts to escape via ONE small opening probably EVEN SMALLER than the 'shaft openings it issued from in the core shafts. So NATURALLY this RE-CONCENTRATION will RE-ESTABLISH and 'mimic' the original pressure/speed of flow with which it entered the floor space in the first place.
Just get two thin tubes. Stick them into a closed 44-gallon drum full of smoke/dust. Feed high speed/pressure smoke-laden air into one tube AND JUST WATCH AS THE SAME AMOUNT/VELOCITY FLOW ISSUES FROM THE CONSTRICTED EXIT through the OTHER thin tube.
Obviously, the 'puffs' come out of ONLY those small OPENINGS that are in fact OPEN in the walls/windows at the time. Since the STRUCTURAL collapse PROPER hadn't reached them at those levels, most windows are unshattered, so only those points where the openings were probably associated with in-ceiling cavity/ventilation duct inlets/outlets etc would be where the 'puffs' would preferentially appear, as observed. Ciao, hereward!
PS: As the pressure would be INCREASING with time as the collapse pressure-front NEARED the affected floors, the 'puff' should be seen to 'continue' and 'intensify' as the collapse front approaches. This is the OPPOSITE of what a momentary 'blast' puff would act like. Cheers.
RC.
.
Hi hereward!
For those who insist that any 'pressure-driven smoke and debris laden air going down the core shafts would 'lose concentration' as it 'expands' into the floor areas ahead of the collapse front, I ask them to consider the OBVIOUS fluid (here 'gas') dynamics of the scenario....
A pressure 'front/flow' enters the floor space and pressurises that space so that air and smoke (which has had, by the time of collapse, an hour or more to penetrate into every 'open' shaft/floor escape route in the building) then is RE-CONCENTRATED into a pressure front/flow as it eventually attempts to escape via ONE small opening probably EVEN SMALLER than the 'shaft openings it issued from in the core shafts. So NATURALLY this RE-CONCENTRATION will RE-ESTABLISH and 'mimic' the original pressure/speed of flow with which it entered the floor space in the first place.
Just get two thin tubes. Stick them into a closed 44-gallon drum full of smoke/dust. Feed high speed/pressure smoke-laden air into one tube AND JUST WATCH AS THE SAME AMOUNT/VELOCITY FLOW ISSUES FROM THE CONSTRICTED EXIT through the OTHER thin tube.
Obviously, the 'puffs' come out of ONLY those small OPENINGS that are in fact OPEN in the walls/windows at the time. Since the STRUCTURAL collapse PROPER hadn't reached them at those levels, most windows are unshattered, so only those points where the openings were probably associated with in-ceiling cavity/ventilation duct inlets/outlets etc would be where the 'puffs' would preferentially appear, as observed. Ciao, hereward!
PS: As the pressure would be INCREASING with time as the collapse pressure-front NEARED the affected floors, the 'puff' should be seen to 'continue' and 'intensify' as the collapse front approaches. This is the OPPOSITE of what a momentary 'blast' puff would act like. Cheers.
RC.
.
DEMOLITION EVIDENCE
good video link:
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/southtower.weststreet.mpg
PLEASE WATCH AND THEN LOOK AT THIS:
It takes 4 seconds for the billiard ball to fall 20 floors.
Now watch the video again. Pay attention to the demolition wave whch shoots down the building.
The collapse begins at somewhere near the 75th floor. There is a mechanical leve at floor 31. Note how long it takes the demoition front blow out the next 25 or so floors. It is difficult to calculate this exactly, but one thing is clear:
The falling debris is above the demolition front.
Please Explain...
good video link:
http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/southtower.weststreet.mpg
PLEASE WATCH AND THEN LOOK AT THIS:
It takes 4 seconds for the billiard ball to fall 20 floors.
Now watch the video again. Pay attention to the demolition wave whch shoots down the building.
The collapse begins at somewhere near the 75th floor. There is a mechanical leve at floor 31. Note how long it takes the demoition front blow out the next 25 or so floors. It is difficult to calculate this exactly, but one thing is clear:
The falling debris is above the demolition front.
Please Explain...
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 23 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 23 2006, 08:23 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 23 2006, 08:17 PM)
QUOTE
by arthur
And YES, I am saying they faced far more resistance than air resistance.
Arthur
And YES, I am saying they faced far more resistance than air resistance.
Arthur
I see you making this proclamation time after time, yet offering absolutely NO evidence to support this proclamation in ANY kind of quantitative way.
Would you care to provide that now?
The perimeter columns only have air resistence. Why isn't the building collapse keeping pace? The only answer is it has more resistance from other things. This is so simple a 2 year old could understand.
The ejecta which you point to as 'free-falling' was ejected PRIOR TO the demolition of the still-standing tower beside that 'free-falling' debris. It started it's downwards descent BEFORE the tower beside it had even been demolished. There is no reason WHY it SHOULD NOT be 'ahead' of the collapse of the intact structure.
You claim it was 20 stories AHEAD of structures (which AS OF THAT time) had not yet been 'exploded'.
Soooo... is this surprising?
They were falling at TRUE free-fall speeds, prior-to the demolitions of the intact structure which are at the same level. Obviously they are going to be further 'ahead' in the collapse sequence.
Now can someone, please show quantatively HOW a normal physics gravity-driven collapse can crush through solid objects at a speed so close to those free-falling debris sections?
I take it then Foxx that you disagree with Woods' showing that the cd would have to be at least 2.8 seconds in front of the gravity driven collapse?
That would require that any debris ejected higher up could not catch a CD sequence.
Nah, you like the crazy lady so you will simply say perhaps that you don't quite follow what she says or that you have some minute points on which you disagree with her.
Your senario is that CD follows the gravity driven falling debris that is outside the towers.
QUOTE
The falling debris is above the demolition front
No, the video is at an extreme vertical angle and the vertical distance between the collapse point and the debris that is falling away cannot be determined. It certainly cannot be said that this video shows that the debris is above the collapse, especially in light of the FACT that no other videos taken at less of a vertical angle show that indeed the debris is ahead of the collapse.
Furthermore since this video shows neither the collapse initiation at the 81st(not the 75th) floor, nor the collapse moving through that mech level at the 31st I fail to see how this vid can show anything about the collapse times between those two floors or the time to collapse the last 25 floors.A few quick frames show large debris hitting the ground. That is NOT the final collapse of floors , it is the large debris that has been falling free away from the building, hitting the ground. Is that not obvious?
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 23 2006, 07:54 PM)
IF you cannot post qualifications equal to (or surpassing) the qualificatons of Ms. Wood's, why should we pay any attention to you at all ???
You shouldn't pay attention to any of MY work.
Which is why I haven't posted ANY.
However, when I show by your own words that you are a LYING or misquoting or distorting the truth, etc etc ad infinitum.
Well, THAT certainly doesn't take a PhD. now does it?
Mr "No Resistance isn't the same as Free Fall".
As to Dr Judy "Balls" Wood, if you look at her BIO it shows nothing relevant to what we are discussing, but I'm not dismissing her for that, Its her description of how the towers were blown that shows she's a MORON.
Arthur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 24 2006, 03:28 AM)
QUOTE
The falling debris is above the demolition front
No, the video is at an extreme vertical angle and the vertical distance between the collapse point and the debris that is falling away cannot be determined. It certainly cannot be said that this video shows that the debris is above the collapse, especially in light of the FACT that no other videos taken at less of a vertical angle show that indeed the debris is ahead of the collapse.
Furthermore since this video shows neither the collapse initiation at the 81st(not the 75th) floor, nor the collapse moving through that mech level at the 31st I fail to see how this vid can show anything about the collapse times between those two floors or the time to collapse the last 25 floors.A few quick frames show large debris hitting the ground. That is NOT the final collapse of floors , it is the large debris that has been falling free away from the building, hitting the ground. Is that not obvious?
It depends on what stage of the collapse you want to examine. Towards the end, the debris is ahead, but during the first 4 seconds the debris is clearly above the demolition wave in ALL videos.
400 pages later and all you've managed to do is make enemies of every active member who contributes to this thread. Way to go guys. I like your "Shove it down their throats" tactics. It's working perfectly. HAHAHA!!!
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 24 2006, 02:02 AM)
DEMOLITION EVIDENCE
1. Squib 40-50 stories below collapse wave.
2. Demolition wave in advance of falling debris.
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/MIHOP
mpg video: http://www.unoriginal.co.uk/newvideos/911....L.CO.UK%20.mpeg
Note: Link seems to be broken.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
What do you expect the floors to sound like as they drop, one next to the other? If it didn't SEEM like explosions I would worry we weren't on earth.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
What do you expect the floors to sound like as they drop, one next to the other? If it didn't SEEM like explosions I would worry we weren't on earth.
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DONT KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDNT FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF
First notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? They BLOW SHIAT UP. So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse if this odd combination.
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DONT KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDNT FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF
First notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? They BLOW SHIAT UP. So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse if this odd combination.
“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers
there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION...
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
Note where these lairs but the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PDF
With that alone I should rest my case.
These CT sites are dishonest.
Here is the other lie, they split up these quote to make it seem like there are more than hey really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera and Stephen Gregory split up as if there are different accounts. They are the same account. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDNT KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDNT KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers
When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling "run".
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110172.PDF
First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.
This is pulled straight out of someones a$$. There is NO Paul Isaac on the record saying anything of the kind. Another CT deception.
1. Squib 40-50 stories below collapse wave.
2. Demolition wave in advance of falling debris.
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/MIHOP
mpg video: http://www.unoriginal.co.uk/newvideos/911....L.CO.UK%20.mpeg
Note: Link seems to be broken.
QUOTE
“I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
What do you expect the floors to sound like as they drop, one next to the other? If it didn't SEEM like explosions I would worry we weren't on earth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski |
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
What do you expect the floors to sound like as they drop, one next to the other? If it didn't SEEM like explosions I would worry we weren't on earth.
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
QUOTE
“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DONT KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDNT FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF
First notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? They BLOW SHIAT UP. So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse if this odd combination.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera |
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DONT KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDNT FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF
First notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? They BLOW SHIAT UP. So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse if this odd combination.
“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers
there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION...
QUOTE
"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski |
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
Note where these lairs but the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PDF
With that alone I should rest my case.
These CT sites are dishonest.Here is the other lie, they split up these quote to make it seem like there are more than hey really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera and Stephen Gregory split up as if there are different accounts. They are the same account. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???
QUOTE
“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDNT KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore |
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDNT KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers
When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling "run".
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110172.PDF
First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.
QUOTE
"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac
This is pulled straight out of someones a$$. There is NO Paul Isaac on the record saying anything of the kind. Another CT deception.
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 24 2006, 12:01 AM)
It depends on what stage of the collapse you want to examine. Towards the end, the debris is ahead, but during the first 4 seconds the debris is clearly above the demolition wave in ALL videos.
No, the video is at an extreme vertical angle and the vertical distance between the collapse point and the debris that is falling away cannot be determined. It certainly cannot be said that this video shows that the debris is above the collapse, especially in light of the FACT that no other videos taken at less of a vertical angle show that indeed the debris is ahead of the collapse.
Furthermore since this video shows neither the collapse initiation at the 81st(not the 75th) floor, nor the collapse moving through that mech level at the 31st I fail to see how this vid can show anything about the collapse times between those two floors or the time to collapse the last 25 floors.A few quick frames show large debris hitting the ground. That is NOT the final collapse of floors , it is the large debris that has been falling free away from the building, hitting the ground. Is that not obvious?
It depends on what stage of the collapse you want to examine. Towards the end, the debris is ahead, but during the first 4 seconds the debris is clearly above the demolition wave in ALL videos.
Really??? Show one, from a fairly horizontal angle.
It just ain't so.
In fact in all videos , both towers, from more horizontal angles, the debris is seen to immediately falls faster than the collapse progresses.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
The ejecta which you point to as 'free-falling' was ejected PRIOR TO the demolition of the still-standing tower beside that 'free-falling' debris. It started it's downwards descent BEFORE the tower beside it had even been demolished. There is no reason WHY it SHOULD NOT be 'ahead' of the collapse of the intact structure.
Sorta like watching two pigs wrasle in the mud ain't it?
Don't really care which one wins.
Arthur
Sorta like watching two pigs wrasle in the mud ain't it?
Don't really care which one wins.
Arthur
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 24 2006, 02:05 AM)
DEMOLITION EVIDENCE
Heh! I've seen more smoke from a truck backfire.
Are you telling me that impotent little puff of smoke is from a bomb which can take down the twin towers!!!
You guys get funnier and funnier.
Heh! I've seen more smoke from a truck backfire.
Are you telling me that impotent little puff of smoke is from a bomb which can take down the twin towers!!!
You guys get funnier and funnier.
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 24 2006, 04:01 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 24 2006, 03:28 AM)
QUOTE
The falling debris is above the demolition front
No, the video is at an extreme vertical angle and the vertical distance between the collapse point and the debris that is falling away cannot be determined. It certainly cannot be said that this video shows that the debris is above the collapse, especially in light of the FACT that no other videos taken at less of a vertical angle show that indeed the debris is ahead of the collapse.
Furthermore since this video shows neither the collapse initiation at the 81st(not the 75th) floor, nor the collapse moving through that mech level at the 31st I fail to see how this vid can show anything about the collapse times between those two floors or the time to collapse the last 25 floors.A few quick frames show large debris hitting the ground. That is NOT the final collapse of floors , it is the large debris that has been falling free away from the building, hitting the ground. Is that not obvious?
It depends on what stage of the collapse you want to examine. Towards the end, the debris is ahead, but during the first 4 seconds the debris is clearly above the demolition wave in ALL videos.
Really??? Show one, from a fairly horizontal angle.
It just ain't so.
In fact in all videos , both towers, from more horizontal angles, the debris is seen to immediately falls faster than the collapse progresses.
I looked at a couple of the videos of the south tower collapse. There are a number of squibs at various levels. They don't appear like something caused by explosives nearby. They appear to eject continuously and get more pronounced as the collapse continues. The closest analogy would be a hole in the side of a cylinder ejecting gas as a piston goes down. The pressure inside the building below the collapse front from must have gotten high enough to break windows.
Still photos of the WTC squibs actually play better into the hands of CD enthusiasts, but the videos don't.
Still photos of the WTC squibs actually play better into the hands of CD enthusiasts, but the videos don't.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 04:28 AM)
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 24 2006, 02:05 AM)
DEMOLITION EVIDENCE
Heh! I've seen more smoke from a truck backfire.
Are you telling me that impotent little puff of smoke is from a bomb which can take down the twin towers!!!
You guys get funnier and funnier.
Hullo there, Common Sense!
If such puffs can blow down such a tower, imagine what you could do with a huge plane exploding inside etc. Hmmmmm....... Gotta rush and eat now. Cheers, CS!
RC.
.
IF you cannot post qualifications equal to (or surpassing) the qualificatons of Ms. Wood's, why should we pay any attention to you at all ???
You shouldn't pay attention to any of MY work.
Which is why I haven't posted ANY.
However, when I show by your own words that you are a LYING or misquoting or distorting the truth, etc etc ad infinitum.
Well, THAT certainly doesn't take a PhD. now does it?
Mr "No Resistance isn't the same as Free Fall".
As to Dr Judy "Balls" Wood, if you look at her BIO it shows nothing relevant to what we are discussing, but I'm not dismissing her for that, Its her description of how the towers were blown that shows she's a MORON.
Arthur
oooo, another 'MORON', arthur?
'for every force, there is an equal and opposite force'.
learn it, NOROM.
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 2 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the East Wall:
•East wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the East wall columns increased with time.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 2 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the East Wall:
•East wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the East wall columns increased with time.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Would these columns subjected "to very high temperature" be the same ones the young lady was leaning against?
WTC 1: There Was No Inferno
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html
Heh! I've seen more smoke from a truck backfire.
Are you telling me that impotent little puff of smoke is from a bomb which can take down the twin towers!!!
You guys get funnier and funnier.
Hullo there, Common Sense!
If such puffs can blow down such a tower, imagine what you could do with a huge plane exploding inside etc. Hmmmmm....... Gotta rush and eat now. Cheers, CS!
RC.
.
Here, the south tower collapse. Debris immediatly drops and out paces the collapse.
Too fast for you?
How about these stills.
There is quite clearly and plainly a lot of debris well below the collapse progression and with the top part of the upper section still in view this is well before your first 4 seconds.
Too fast for you?
How about these stills.
There is quite clearly and plainly a lot of debris well below the collapse progression and with the top part of the upper section still in view this is well before your first 4 seconds.
The ABC news clip of the south tower collapse shows a pronounced squib (or perhaps jet is a better term) at the same level as the observation deck on the east side. That may stand to reason if the observation deck didn't have many walls inside or other material to obstruct the movement of air inside.
It seems most of the squibs were also in the center regions of each wall. Those regions are closest to the central inner region of the building, as opposed to areas near the corners which are further away and probably have more obstructions between them and the central part of the building. The windows in the central regions of each face may have been easier to blow out.
It seems most of the squibs were also in the center regions of each wall. Those regions are closest to the central inner region of the building, as opposed to areas near the corners which are further away and probably have more obstructions between them and the central part of the building. The windows in the central regions of each face may have been easier to blow out.
QUOTE (shagster+Feb 24 2006, 12:47 AM)
The ABC news clip of the south tower collapse shows a pronounced squib (or perhaps jet is a better term) at the same level as the observation deck on the east side. That may stand to reason if the observation deck didn't have many walls inside or other material to obstruct the movement of air inside.
It seems most of the squibs were also in the center regions of each wall. Those regions are closest to the central inner region of the building, as opposed to areas near the corners which are further away and probably have more obstructions between them and the central part of the building. The windows in the central regions of each face may have been easier to blow out.
Shagster,
I think it has to do with how the core is layed out:
Note the orientation of the two hallways that run through the core.
They tended to alternate on different floors but they still lined up fairly close to the center of each side.
Of course a number of HUGE elevator shafts ran as one continuous shaft betwen the the impact zone and the basement, and the original fireball/fuel explosion blew a number of elevators out or doors off.
There is also stand pipes, electrical cable and various other plenums running between floors.
Each of those Xs on the floor plan indicate an opening.
Arthur
It seems most of the squibs were also in the center regions of each wall. Those regions are closest to the central inner region of the building, as opposed to areas near the corners which are further away and probably have more obstructions between them and the central part of the building. The windows in the central regions of each face may have been easier to blow out.
Shagster,
I think it has to do with how the core is layed out:
Note the orientation of the two hallways that run through the core.
They tended to alternate on different floors but they still lined up fairly close to the center of each side.
Of course a number of HUGE elevator shafts ran as one continuous shaft betwen the the impact zone and the basement, and the original fireball/fuel explosion blew a number of elevators out or doors off.
There is also stand pipes, electrical cable and various other plenums running between floors.
Each of those Xs on the floor plan indicate an opening.
Arthur
I assume the observation decks were fairly empty. They were intermediate points between the different sections of the elevator systems. There must have been some open space provided there for people to wait while exchanging elevators.
On one of the posted conspiracy sites, the person states the squib coming from a region that looks like a stripe on the building. I think he is referring to the observation deck.
On one of the posted conspiracy sites, the person states the squib coming from a region that looks like a stripe on the building. I think he is referring to the observation deck.
QUOTE (shagster+Feb 24 2006, 01:18 AM)
I assume the observation decks were fairly empty. They were intermediate points between the different sections of the elevator systems. There must have been some open space provided there for people to wait while exchanging elevators.
On one of the posted conspiracy sites, the person states the squib coming from a region that looks like a stripe on the building. I think he is referring to the observation deck.
I'm not sure what use putting a "squib" on the observation deck would accomplish.
Seems like the last place one would need one.
I assume you are really talking about the SKY LOBBIES. These were where the express elevators from the lobby met with the local elevators for that section of the tower. There were also 3 express elevators Between Sky lobby 1 and 2.
Arthur
On one of the posted conspiracy sites, the person states the squib coming from a region that looks like a stripe on the building. I think he is referring to the observation deck.
I'm not sure what use putting a "squib" on the observation deck would accomplish.
Seems like the last place one would need one.
I assume you are really talking about the SKY LOBBIES. These were where the express elevators from the lobby met with the local elevators for that section of the tower. There were also 3 express elevators Between Sky lobby 1 and 2.
Arthur
Sky lobbies is what I meant. I didn't mean a deck on top of the building.
This photograph was taken after the top of the South Tower began its fall:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...tower2_exp1.jpg
Here the demolition outpaces the falling debris. Notice it is the mechanical floors .
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...tower2_exp1.jpg
Here the demolition outpaces the falling debris. Notice it is the mechanical floors .
QUOTE (shagster+Feb 24 2006, 01:39 AM)
Sky lobbies is what I meant. I didn't mean a deck on top of the building.
Yeah, took me a second to realize that.
The sky lobbies were right above the mechanical floors for the elevators, which I think is the "stripe" you mentioned. It was not a office floor.
Arthur
Yeah, took me a second to realize that.
The sky lobbies were right above the mechanical floors for the elevators, which I think is the "stripe" you mentioned. It was not a office floor.
Arthur
I assume debris could have been pushed down the interior parts of the tower much faster than freefall rate with the help of the dynamic pressure front created by the collapse front above it. It's not too surprising you could see debris being ejected from windows many floors below the collapse front. Anyone who has studied aerodynamics is familiar with static pressure and the dynamic pressure which is related to the momentum of air in motion. The dynamic pressure wave is what the CD enthusiasts refer to as the 'demolition front.'
david ray baby is on coast to coast..
LOL!
frank d. martini(disappeared 911)
'like sticking a pencil though mosquito netting'
'not enough time for steel to heat'
george: it looked EXACTLY like a demolition
if they DID 'pull' building seven, WHY IS THAT SUCH A BAD THING IF IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?
THE AMOUNTS OF EXPLOSIVES MUST HAVE BEEN HUGE!
(looks like george is
a. playing dumb, or
b. a 'debunker'.
)
rick gibney?
gibney today is denying it.
TWA800?
george(paraphrased by me): we don't need to know. they're benevolent rulers.
"asymmetrical sag" (thank you).
dust cloud seen at TOP of collapse for one and two, not the bottom, as seen in tower seven.
nothing but 'steel and dust'.
'computers, wood, people, PULVERIZED' (i disagree, i say EVAPORATED, or DISINTEGRATED)
okay, enough realtime transcribing for the thread SECRETary...
good night, and sweet dreams.
LOL!
frank d. martini(disappeared 911)
'like sticking a pencil though mosquito netting'
'not enough time for steel to heat'
george: it looked EXACTLY like a demolition
if they DID 'pull' building seven, WHY IS THAT SUCH A BAD THING IF IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?
THE AMOUNTS OF EXPLOSIVES MUST HAVE BEEN HUGE!
(looks like george is
a. playing dumb, or
b. a 'debunker'.
)
rick gibney?
gibney today is denying it.
TWA800?
george(paraphrased by me): we don't need to know. they're benevolent rulers.
"asymmetrical sag" (thank you).
dust cloud seen at TOP of collapse for one and two, not the bottom, as seen in tower seven.
nothing but 'steel and dust'.
'computers, wood, people, PULVERIZED' (i disagree, i say EVAPORATED, or DISINTEGRATED)
okay, enough realtime transcribing for the thread SECRETary...
good night, and sweet dreams.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The ABC news clip of the south tower collapse shows a pronounced squib (or perhaps jet is a better term) at the same level as the observation deck on the east side. That may stand to reason if the observation deck didn't have many walls inside or other material to obstruct the movement of air inside. It seems most of the squibs were also in the center regions of each wall. Those regions are closest to the central inner region of the building, as opposed to areas near the corners which are further away and probably have more obstructions between them and the central part of the building. The windows in the central regions of each face may have been easier to blow out. Shagster, I think it has to do with how the core is layed out: Note the orientation of the two hallways that run through the core. They tended to alternate on different floors but they still lined up fairly close to the center of each side. Of course a number of HUGE elevator shafts ran as one continuous shaft betwen the the impact zone and the basement, and the original fireball/fuel explosion blew a number of elevators out or doors off. There is also stand pipes, electrical cable and various other plenums running between floors. Each of those Xs on the floor plan indicate an opening. Arthur |
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 24 2006, 03:52 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 23 2006, 07:54 PM)
IF you cannot post qualifications equal to (or surpassing) the qualificatons of Ms. Wood's, why should we pay any attention to you at all ???
You shouldn't pay attention to any of MY work.
Which is why I haven't posted ANY.
However, when I show by your own words that you are a LYING or misquoting or distorting the truth, etc etc ad infinitum.
Well, THAT certainly doesn't take a PhD. now does it?
Mr "No Resistance isn't the same as Free Fall".
As to Dr Judy "Balls" Wood, if you look at her BIO it shows nothing relevant to what we are discussing, but I'm not dismissing her for that, Its her description of how the towers were blown that shows she's a MORON.
Arthur
oooo, another 'MORON', arthur?
'for every force, there is an equal and opposite force'.
learn it, NOROM.
NOROM MORON
Common Sense he calls himself then to discredit Griffin offers Murphy's essay as an example of a peer reviewed paper.
I pointed out before (it screams out at you) the whopper in the opening paragraph -
-"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
This rules out WTC 1&2
If we use our common sense I suggest -
"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."
SEPTEMBERGATE anyone -
World Trade Center Building 7 demands tenacious public scrutiny
February 23, 2006 –
The number of Americans that do not believe the federal government’s official account of what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001 is rapidly increasing. --
http://www.teamliberty.net/id226.html
I pointed out before (it screams out at you) the whopper in the opening paragraph -
-"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
This rules out WTC 1&2
If we use our common sense I suggest -
"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."
SEPTEMBERGATE anyone -
World Trade Center Building 7 demands tenacious public scrutiny
February 23, 2006 –
The number of Americans that do not believe the federal government’s official account of what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001 is rapidly increasing. --
http://www.teamliberty.net/id226.html
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2006, 05:40 AM)
This photograph was taken after the top of the South Tower began its fall:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...tower2_exp1.jpg
Here the demolition outpaces the falling debris. Notice it is the mechanical floors .
That puff of debris is on the mechanical floor. That should tell a normal person there are vents and other openings on those floors which help the cooling of the building. It's where lots of elevator equipment was for the elevators below the upper sky lobbies. In a sealed building (Assuming people in the building breath) you would need large ventilation systems, not only for the equipment but the people as well. What I see is the build up of pressure caused by the 'hypodermic needle effect' blowing debris out the path of least resistance. And what do you think would be the path of least resistance... The stairways? The Elevator shafts? The ventalation system? All of the above? If you answered 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' you get a cookie.
The proof is YOU DON'T HAVE THESE PUFFS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE!
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...tower2_exp1.jpg
Here the demolition outpaces the falling debris. Notice it is the mechanical floors .
That puff of debris is on the mechanical floor. That should tell a normal person there are vents and other openings on those floors which help the cooling of the building. It's where lots of elevator equipment was for the elevators below the upper sky lobbies. In a sealed building (Assuming people in the building breath) you would need large ventilation systems, not only for the equipment but the people as well. What I see is the build up of pressure caused by the 'hypodermic needle effect' blowing debris out the path of least resistance. And what do you think would be the path of least resistance... The stairways? The Elevator shafts? The ventalation system? All of the above? If you answered 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' you get a cookie.
The proof is YOU DON'T HAVE THESE PUFFS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE!
Regarding the cuts to operational capacity of the Coast Guard and the inadequacy of Customs, James Ridgeway writes:
This is a dream setup for any arms or dope dealer, and that's exactly what the United Arab Emirates is all about.The ties between its top officials and royal family with the Taliban and Al Qaeda go back at least a decade.
The UAE is not only the center of financial dealings in the Persian Gulf, it is switching central for dope and arms dealing. The dope comes out of Afghanistan into the UAE where tax monies are collected and used to buy arms, which were sent back in for the Taliban. Some of this money is thought to have helped finance the 9-11 attacks. A money trail is set forth in the government's filings in the Moussaoui case.
Long at the center of this operation is the mysterious Russian arms dealer, Victor Bout.... His planes are registered to various companies all operating out of the United Arab Emirates.
In fact, the United Arab Emirates have been viewed as hub for trade going and coming to Afghanistan, with drugs coming from Afghanistan on their way to the West, and weapons from Bout, going back. While transportation was via Bout's different air cargo interests, it also involved the Afghan state airlines, called Ariana Airlines. The airline was controlled by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda agents masquerading as Ariana employees flew out of Afghanistan, through Sharjah, one of the emirates, and on to points west.
Bout, naturally enough for someone beyond the reach of any arm of justice, has been a wildly successful contractor to United States forces in Iraq. Last month, Douglas Farah wrote of Bout's Pentagon connections:
Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russell Feingold first raised the issue of Bout's coalition military contracts on May 18, 2004, in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Feingold asked then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage about reports of U.S. military links to Bout's companies. It took Wolfowitz eight months to respond.
In a January 31, 2005, letter to Feingold, Wolfowitz acknowledged that "both the U.S. Army and the Coalition Provisional Authority (in Iraq) did conduct business with companies that, in turn, subcontracted work to second tier suppliers who leased aircraft owned by companies associated with Mr. Bout.... Although we are aware of a few companies that are connected to Mr. Bout, most notably Air Bas and Jetline, we suspect Mr. Bout has other companies or enterprises unknown to the Government."
In fact, as the Los Angeles Times first reported in 2004, Bout aircraft were in constant motion into Iraq after the invasion. A single Bout company, Irbis, flew more than 140 flights into Iraq for the U.S. military and its contractors by the end of 2004.
This is a dream setup for any arms or dope dealer, and that's exactly what the United Arab Emirates is all about.The ties between its top officials and royal family with the Taliban and Al Qaeda go back at least a decade.
The UAE is not only the center of financial dealings in the Persian Gulf, it is switching central for dope and arms dealing. The dope comes out of Afghanistan into the UAE where tax monies are collected and used to buy arms, which were sent back in for the Taliban. Some of this money is thought to have helped finance the 9-11 attacks. A money trail is set forth in the government's filings in the Moussaoui case.
Long at the center of this operation is the mysterious Russian arms dealer, Victor Bout.... His planes are registered to various companies all operating out of the United Arab Emirates.
In fact, the United Arab Emirates have been viewed as hub for trade going and coming to Afghanistan, with drugs coming from Afghanistan on their way to the West, and weapons from Bout, going back. While transportation was via Bout's different air cargo interests, it also involved the Afghan state airlines, called Ariana Airlines. The airline was controlled by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda agents masquerading as Ariana employees flew out of Afghanistan, through Sharjah, one of the emirates, and on to points west.
Bout, naturally enough for someone beyond the reach of any arm of justice, has been a wildly successful contractor to United States forces in Iraq. Last month, Douglas Farah wrote of Bout's Pentagon connections:
Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russell Feingold first raised the issue of Bout's coalition military contracts on May 18, 2004, in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Feingold asked then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage about reports of U.S. military links to Bout's companies. It took Wolfowitz eight months to respond.
In a January 31, 2005, letter to Feingold, Wolfowitz acknowledged that "both the U.S. Army and the Coalition Provisional Authority (in Iraq) did conduct business with companies that, in turn, subcontracted work to second tier suppliers who leased aircraft owned by companies associated with Mr. Bout.... Although we are aware of a few companies that are connected to Mr. Bout, most notably Air Bas and Jetline, we suspect Mr. Bout has other companies or enterprises unknown to the Government."
In fact, as the Los Angeles Times first reported in 2004, Bout aircraft were in constant motion into Iraq after the invasion. A single Bout company, Irbis, flew more than 140 flights into Iraq for the U.S. military and its contractors by the end of 2004.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Feb 24 2006, 01:49 PM)
Regarding the cuts to operational capacity of the Coast Guard and the inadequacy of Customs, James Ridgeway writes:
This is a dream setup for any arms or dope dealer, and that's exactly what the United Arab Emirates is all about.The ties between its top officials and royal family with the Taliban and Al Qaeda go back at least a decade.
The UAE is not only the center of financial dealings in the Persian Gulf, it is switching central for dope and arms dealing. The dope comes out of Afghanistan into the UAE where tax monies are collected and used to buy arms, which were sent back in for the Taliban. Some of this money is thought to have helped finance the 9-11 attacks. A money trail is set forth in the government's filings in the Moussaoui case.
Long at the center of this operation is the mysterious Russian arms dealer, Victor Bout.... His planes are registered to various companies all operating out of the United Arab Emirates.
In fact, the United Arab Emirates have been viewed as hub for trade going and coming to Afghanistan, with drugs coming from Afghanistan on their way to the West, and weapons from Bout, going back. While transportation was via Bout's different air cargo interests, it also involved the Afghan state airlines, called Ariana Airlines. The airline was controlled by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda agents masquerading as Ariana employees flew out of Afghanistan, through Sharjah, one of the emirates, and on to points west.
Bout, naturally enough for someone beyond the reach of any arm of justice, has been a wildly successful contractor to United States forces in Iraq. Last month, Douglas Farah wrote of Bout's Pentagon connections:
Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russell Feingold first raised the issue of Bout's coalition military contracts on May 18, 2004, in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Feingold asked then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage about reports of U.S. military links to Bout's companies. It took Wolfowitz eight months to respond.
In a January 31, 2005, letter to Feingold, Wolfowitz acknowledged that "both the U.S. Army and the Coalition Provisional Authority (in Iraq) did conduct business with companies that, in turn, subcontracted work to second tier suppliers who leased aircraft owned by companies associated with Mr. Bout.... Although we are aware of a few companies that are connected to Mr. Bout, most notably Air Bas and Jetline, we suspect Mr. Bout has other companies or enterprises unknown to the Government."
In fact, as the Los Angeles Times first reported in 2004, Bout aircraft were in constant motion into Iraq after the invasion. A single Bout company, Irbis, flew more than 140 flights into Iraq for the U.S. military and its contractors by the end of 2004.
That could all be true and the buildings still fell from fire.
This is a dream setup for any arms or dope dealer, and that's exactly what the United Arab Emirates is all about.The ties between its top officials and royal family with the Taliban and Al Qaeda go back at least a decade.
The UAE is not only the center of financial dealings in the Persian Gulf, it is switching central for dope and arms dealing. The dope comes out of Afghanistan into the UAE where tax monies are collected and used to buy arms, which were sent back in for the Taliban. Some of this money is thought to have helped finance the 9-11 attacks. A money trail is set forth in the government's filings in the Moussaoui case.
Long at the center of this operation is the mysterious Russian arms dealer, Victor Bout.... His planes are registered to various companies all operating out of the United Arab Emirates.
In fact, the United Arab Emirates have been viewed as hub for trade going and coming to Afghanistan, with drugs coming from Afghanistan on their way to the West, and weapons from Bout, going back. While transportation was via Bout's different air cargo interests, it also involved the Afghan state airlines, called Ariana Airlines. The airline was controlled by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda agents masquerading as Ariana employees flew out of Afghanistan, through Sharjah, one of the emirates, and on to points west.
Bout, naturally enough for someone beyond the reach of any arm of justice, has been a wildly successful contractor to United States forces in Iraq. Last month, Douglas Farah wrote of Bout's Pentagon connections:
Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russell Feingold first raised the issue of Bout's coalition military contracts on May 18, 2004, in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Feingold asked then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage about reports of U.S. military links to Bout's companies. It took Wolfowitz eight months to respond.
In a January 31, 2005, letter to Feingold, Wolfowitz acknowledged that "both the U.S. Army and the Coalition Provisional Authority (in Iraq) did conduct business with companies that, in turn, subcontracted work to second tier suppliers who leased aircraft owned by companies associated with Mr. Bout.... Although we are aware of a few companies that are connected to Mr. Bout, most notably Air Bas and Jetline, we suspect Mr. Bout has other companies or enterprises unknown to the Government."
In fact, as the Los Angeles Times first reported in 2004, Bout aircraft were in constant motion into Iraq after the invasion. A single Bout company, Irbis, flew more than 140 flights into Iraq for the U.S. military and its contractors by the end of 2004.
That could all be true and the buildings still fell from fire.
QUOTE (brian+Feb 24 2006, 12:49 PM)
Common Sense he calls himself then to discredit Griffin offers Murphy's essay as an example of a peer reviewed paper.
I pointed out before (it screams out at you) the whopper in the opening paragraph -
-"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
This rules out WTC 1&2
If we use our common sense I suggest -
"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."
SEPTEMBERGATE anyone -
World Trade Center Building 7 demands tenacious public scrutiny
February 23, 2006 –
The number of Americans that do not believe the federal government’s official account of what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001 is rapidly increasing. --
http://www.teamliberty.net/id226.html
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
I pointed out before (it screams out at you) the whopper in the opening paragraph -
-"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
This rules out WTC 1&2
If we use our common sense I suggest -
"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."
SEPTEMBERGATE anyone -
World Trade Center Building 7 demands tenacious public scrutiny
February 23, 2006 –
The number of Americans that do not believe the federal government’s official account of what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001 is rapidly increasing. --
http://www.teamliberty.net/id226.html
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
QUOTE
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 2 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the East Wall:
•East wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the East wall columns increased with time.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 02:12 PM)
QUOTE
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 2 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the East Wall:
•East wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the East wall columns increased with time.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Would these columns subjected "to very high temperature" be the same ones the young lady was leaning against?
WTC 1: There Was No Inferno
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2006, 05:40 AM)
This photograph was taken after the top of the South Tower began its fall:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...tower2_exp1.jpg
Here the demolition outpaces the falling debris. Notice it is the mechanical floors .
That puff of debris is on the mechanical floor. That should tell a normal person there are vents and other openings on those floors which help the cooling of the building. It's where lots of elevator equipment was for the elevators below the upper sky lobbies. In a sealed building (Assuming people in the building breath) you would need large ventilation systems, not only for the equipment but the people as well. What I see is the build up of pressure caused by the 'hypodermic needle effect' blowing debris out the path of least resistance. And what do you think would be the path of least resistance... The stairways? The Elevator shafts? The ventalation system? All of the above? If you answered 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' you get a cookie.
The proof is YOU DON'T HAVE THESE PUFFS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE!
If that is true, there should be no reason for the built up pressure being released on non-mechanical floors:
http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/wtc-small.1057.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...tower2_exp1.jpg
Here the demolition outpaces the falling debris. Notice it is the mechanical floors .
That puff of debris is on the mechanical floor. That should tell a normal person there are vents and other openings on those floors which help the cooling of the building. It's where lots of elevator equipment was for the elevators below the upper sky lobbies. In a sealed building (Assuming people in the building breath) you would need large ventilation systems, not only for the equipment but the people as well. What I see is the build up of pressure caused by the 'hypodermic needle effect' blowing debris out the path of least resistance. And what do you think would be the path of least resistance... The stairways? The Elevator shafts? The ventalation system? All of the above? If you answered 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' you get a cookie.
The proof is YOU DON'T HAVE THESE PUFFS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE!
If that is true, there should be no reason for the built up pressure being released on non-mechanical floors:
http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/wtc-small.1057.jpg
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2006, 02:58 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2006, 05:40 AM)
This photograph was taken after the top of the South Tower began its fall:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...tower2_exp1.jpg
Here the demolition outpaces the falling debris. Notice it is the mechanical floors .
That puff of debris is on the mechanical floor. That should tell a normal person there are vents and other openings on those floors which help the cooling of the building. It's where lots of elevator equipment was for the elevators below the upper sky lobbies. In a sealed building (Assuming people in the building breath) you would need large ventilation systems, not only for the equipment but the people as well. What I see is the build up of pressure caused by the 'hypodermic needle effect' blowing debris out the path of least resistance. And what do you think would be the path of least resistance... The stairways? The Elevator shafts? The ventalation system? All of the above? If you answered 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' you get a cookie.
The proof is YOU DON'T HAVE THESE PUFFS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE!
If that is true, there should be no reason for the built up pressure being released on non-mechanical floors:
http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/wtc-small.1057.jpg
Well now were getting somewhere... At least you know the mecanical floors should be open and this effect could be normal.
You haven't proven those puffs aren't also from mechanical floors... But you also don't know where all the ventilation systems are in the building either. I doubt they stuck all the ventilation systems on two levels. But even if they did and that's isn't a mechanical floor you can't say that isn't the path of least resistance for the debris. The pressure will only build and find another way out. If you acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor then why do you think it can't build and blow out a few windows, say on a floor with open elevator doors or stairwells?
And you have yet to explain how a bomb blows up backward. How does a bomb show progressive strenght? I've never seen a CD do that...
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 2 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the East Wall:
•East wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the East wall columns increased with time.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Would these columns subjected "to very high temperature" be the same ones the young lady was leaning against?
No she is on the NORTH side of the tower.
The North side is COOLEST side of the tower. Where she is standing is probably one of the coolest areas since the plane took out the flooring above her, thus no fires.
Aditionally the wind is OUT OF THE NORTH (see smoke direction), thus she has a cool breeze blowing on her.
She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire.
The smoke and fire inside the tower are moving away from her to the South.
The Columns on the South were the ones to fail first.
Arthur
Well now were getting somewhere... At least you know the mecanical floors should be open and this effect could be normal.
You haven't proven those puffs aren't also from mechanical floors... But you also don't know where all the ventilation systems are in the building either. I doubt they stuck all the ventilation systems on two levels. But even if they did and that's isn't a mechanical floor you can't say that isn't the path of least resistance for the debris. The pressure will only build and find another way out. If you acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor then why do you think it can't build and blow out a few windows, say on a floor with open elevator doors or stairwells?
And you have yet to explain how a bomb blows up backward. How does a bomb show progressive strenght? I've never seen a CD do that...
I don’t acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor. I was just showing your explanation is ridicules. The core is not collapsing at the same time as the floor in any of the pancake theories. This would serve as a huge release valve for any over pressure to the open areas above the collapse.
Well now were getting somewhere... At least you know the mecanical floors should be open and this effect could be normal.
You haven't proven those puffs aren't also from mechanical floors... But you also don't know where all the ventilation systems are in the building either. I doubt they stuck all the ventilation systems on two levels. But even if they did and that's isn't a mechanical floor you can't say that isn't the path of least resistance for the debris. The pressure will only build and find another way out. If you acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor then why do you think it can't build and blow out a few windows, say on a floor with open elevator doors or stairwells?
And you have yet to explain how a bomb blows up backward. How does a bomb show progressive strenght? I've never seen a CD do that...
I don’t acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor. I was just showing your explanation is ridicules. The core is not collapsing at the same time as the floor in any of the pancake theories. This would serve as a huge release valve for any over pressure to the open areas above the collapse.
This is why I call you people morons, you don't use your head.
Do you see the core above about the 50th story? NO... And why is that? Because the core collapsed with the building above the impact and ripped some of the core below that point with it. What do you think happened to that debris??? It flew away? No, it created a loose plug of debris which was also falling down elevator shafts and such. How would the falling debris be equal to the elevator and vent shafts as a path of least resistance??? What happened to the elevators? Didn't they fall creating another hypo effect??? Are you saying the path of least resistance is the opposite direction of falling elevators and debris? THINK!
You're really making yourself look dumb here. Stop and think before you write.
Stop dodging the question with nonsense. How does a bomb progress in strength instead of dissipate after exploding? How does this bomb work in reverse...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...tower2_exp1.jpg
Here the demolition outpaces the falling debris. Notice it is the mechanical floors .
That puff of debris is on the mechanical floor. That should tell a normal person there are vents and other openings on those floors which help the cooling of the building. It's where lots of elevator equipment was for the elevators below the upper sky lobbies. In a sealed building (Assuming people in the building breath) you would need large ventilation systems, not only for the equipment but the people as well. What I see is the build up of pressure caused by the 'hypodermic needle effect' blowing debris out the path of least resistance. And what do you think would be the path of least resistance... The stairways? The Elevator shafts? The ventalation system? All of the above? If you answered 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' you get a cookie.
The proof is YOU DON'T HAVE THESE PUFFS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE!
If that is true, there should be no reason for the built up pressure being released on non-mechanical floors:
http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/wtc-small.1057.jpg
Well now were getting somewhere... At least you know the mecanical floors should be open and this effect could be normal.
You haven't proven those puffs aren't also from mechanical floors... But you also don't know where all the ventilation systems are in the building either. I doubt they stuck all the ventilation systems on two levels. But even if they did and that's isn't a mechanical floor you can't say that isn't the path of least resistance for the debris. The pressure will only build and find another way out. If you acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor then why do you think it can't build and blow out a few windows, say on a floor with open elevator doors or stairwells?
And you have yet to explain how a bomb blows up backward. How does a bomb show progressive strenght? I've never seen a CD do that...
QUOTE (brian+Feb 24 2006, 10:57 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 02:12 PM)
QUOTE
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 2 (2)
...C. Thermal Weakening of the East Wall:
•East wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the East wall columns increased with time.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Would these columns subjected "to very high temperature" be the same ones the young lady was leaning against?
No she is on the NORTH side of the tower.
The North side is COOLEST side of the tower. Where she is standing is probably one of the coolest areas since the plane took out the flooring above her, thus no fires.
Aditionally the wind is OUT OF THE NORTH (see smoke direction), thus she has a cool breeze blowing on her.
She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire.
The smoke and fire inside the tower are moving away from her to the South.
The Columns on the South were the ones to fail first.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 07:25 AM)
Well now were getting somewhere... At least you know the mecanical floors should be open and this effect could be normal.
You haven't proven those puffs aren't also from mechanical floors... But you also don't know where all the ventilation systems are in the building either. I doubt they stuck all the ventilation systems on two levels. But even if they did and that's isn't a mechanical floor you can't say that isn't the path of least resistance for the debris. The pressure will only build and find another way out. If you acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor then why do you think it can't build and blow out a few windows, say on a floor with open elevator doors or stairwells?
And you have yet to explain how a bomb blows up backward. How does a bomb show progressive strenght? I've never seen a CD do that...
I don’t acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor. I was just showing your explanation is ridicules. The core is not collapsing at the same time as the floor in any of the pancake theories. This would serve as a huge release valve for any over pressure to the open areas above the collapse.
Personally I think most of what we are seeing is the effect of either material or elevators freefalling in the many elevator shafts and hitting bottom on the mecanical floors.
But, there are LOTS of other possibilities in this chaos.
To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist.
There is NO OTHER PROOF they exist and the FEW blasts of air/debris are SO FEW AND FAR INBETWEEN that to say they are evidence of a controlled demolition is absurd in the extreme.
Which tells you MUCH MORE about the people who MAKE this absurd claim than ANYTHING about the WTC tower's collapse.
Arthur
But, there are LOTS of other possibilities in this chaos.
To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist.
There is NO OTHER PROOF they exist and the FEW blasts of air/debris are SO FEW AND FAR INBETWEEN that to say they are evidence of a controlled demolition is absurd in the extreme.
Which tells you MUCH MORE about the people who MAKE this absurd claim than ANYTHING about the WTC tower's collapse.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2006, 03:47 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 07:25 AM)
Well now were getting somewhere... At least you know the mecanical floors should be open and this effect could be normal.
You haven't proven those puffs aren't also from mechanical floors... But you also don't know where all the ventilation systems are in the building either. I doubt they stuck all the ventilation systems on two levels. But even if they did and that's isn't a mechanical floor you can't say that isn't the path of least resistance for the debris. The pressure will only build and find another way out. If you acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor then why do you think it can't build and blow out a few windows, say on a floor with open elevator doors or stairwells?
And you have yet to explain how a bomb blows up backward. How does a bomb show progressive strenght? I've never seen a CD do that...
I don’t acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor. I was just showing your explanation is ridicules. The core is not collapsing at the same time as the floor in any of the pancake theories. This would serve as a huge release valve for any over pressure to the open areas above the collapse.
This is why I call you people morons, you don't use your head.
Do you see the core above about the 50th story? NO... And why is that? Because the core collapsed with the building above the impact and ripped some of the core below that point with it. What do you think happened to that debris??? It flew away? No, it created a loose plug of debris which was also falling down elevator shafts and such. How would the falling debris be equal to the elevator and vent shafts as a path of least resistance??? What happened to the elevators? Didn't they fall creating another hypo effect??? Are you saying the path of least resistance is the opposite direction of falling elevators and debris? THINK!
You're really making yourself look dumb here. Stop and think before you write.
Stop dodging the question with nonsense. How does a bomb progress in strength instead of dissipate after exploding? How does this bomb work in reverse...
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 07:25 AM)
And you have yet to explain how a bomb blows up backward. How does a bomb show progressive strenght? I've never seen a CD do that...
So, when the pellets from a shotgun spread out they are showing progressive strength. Now I understand why you believe Cheney shot Whittington from 30 yards (or was that Arthur).
So, when the pellets from a shotgun spread out they are showing progressive strength. Now I understand why you believe Cheney shot Whittington from 30 yards (or was that Arthur).
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2006, 04:57 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 07:25 AM)
And you have yet to explain how a bomb blows up backward. How does a bomb show progressive strenght? I've never seen a CD do that...
So, when the pellets from a shotgun spread out they are showing progressive strength. Now I understand why you believe Cheney shot Whittington from 30 yards (or was that Arthur).
I don't know what the hell you're talking about but you make my point. The videos of that debris shows it getting progessively stronger as the collapsing building nears. So it's YOU who think the shotgun pellets slowlly came out of the barrel then speed up to Cheney's friends face.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT...
BRIAN
BRIAN
HE'S OUR MAN
HE CAN POST DRIVEL
LIKE NOBODY CAN
So, when the pellets from a shotgun spread out they are showing progressive strength. Now I understand why you believe Cheney shot Whittington from 30 yards (or was that Arthur).
I don't know what the hell you're talking about but you make my point. The videos of that debris shows it getting progessively stronger as the collapsing building nears. So it's YOU who think the shotgun pellets slowlly came out of the barrel then speed up to Cheney's friends face.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT...
The time for obfuscation has been and gone -
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
BRIAN
BRIAN
HE'S OUR MAN
HE CAN POST DRIVEL
LIKE NOBODY CAN
QUOTE (brian+Feb 24 2006, 06:23 PM)
The time for obfuscation has been and gone -
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 24 2006, 06:23 PM)
The time for obfuscation has been and gone -
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Can you show where the evidence comes from that allows this opening statement -
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
No you cannot so it is not worth the paper it was written on and why any self respecting professional should put their name to what can only be called guess work we can only imagine.
Academic history anyway as we are now in a position where-
"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."
:-)
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Can you show where the evidence comes from that allows this opening statement -
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
No you cannot so it is not worth the paper it was written on and why any self respecting professional should put their name to what can only be called guess work we can only imagine.
Academic history anyway as we are now in a position where-
"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."
:-)
It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: people who believe the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government are MORONS.
QUOTE (brian+Feb 24 2006, 09:08 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 24 2006, 06:23 PM)
The time for obfuscation has been and gone -
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Can you show where the evidence comes from that allows this opening statement -
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
No you cannot so it is not worth the paper it was written on and why any self respecting professional should put their name to what can only be called guess work we can only imagine.
Academic history anyway as we are now in a position where-
"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."
:-)
Hello brian!
Still spamming for 'click traffic' to your 'employers' paper/site? How much have you earned by now? Is that site one of the group of sites started as 'fronts' by terrorists who earn 'explosives/weapons' CASH through 'click traffic' on those sites? Have THEY 'suckered' enough 'click traffic' to finance their NEXT attack CELL somewhere in the world?
But even assuming that you are NOT 'mercenary/criminal' in any way, how do you explain away the fact that you seem to be missing the bleedingly obvious?
(1) You saw the raging fires in the vidoes.
(2) You have heard that office-fuel fires reach temps between 800C and 1100C.
(3) You have seen on the videos that the spray-on fireproofing was knocked off by the HUGE plane/jetfuel explosions that also took out some floors.
(4) You have read where the columns were WEAKENED/DISTORTED by high/differential HEATING.
(5) You must know by now that the design was COMPROMISED once the floor trusses buckled/expanded/contracted and biased the local failure modes of the WEAKENED/DISTORTED columns EVEN FURTHER.
(6) You KNOW that the TOP sections included an UNUSUAL AND EXTREMELY HEAVY/STRONG HAT TRUSS STRUCTURE (just ask Foxx) that would have ADDED GREATLY to the weight/momentum/distortion forces once the inner/outer columns DID fail from heat/distortions and LOSS OF INTEGRATED FLOOR-TRUSS SUPPORT.
So it's NOT TRUE that the LOCAL STRUCTURE WEIGHT got less the higher up one got...because between the impact floors and the HAT TRUSS etc, there was much MORE than the AVERAGE 'HEIGHT-SPREAD' WEIGHT LOADING' for that now EFFECTIVELY 'SEPARATED' segment.
(7) So the failure of the TOP section was CALAMITOUS and inevitable just because the COLUMNS WERE THINNER/WEAKER as one got higher...BUT THE LOCAL WEIGHT ON THOSE COLUMNS WAS GREATER because of that local 'top box' plus HAT TRUSS section now teetering on the lower structure.
Now that we have exposed your stupidity and or sheer ignorant perverseness, brian, what does your employer order you to 'spam' next? That YOU have a peer-reviewed paper of your own in the works? Or will you just follow their 'standing order' to spam for all you're worth for the 'Griffin' paper 'front' site for terrorists and/or con-artists looking for more 'sucker click' traffic?
You are a REAL joke, brian. Do you and newton and galdur and JamesX et al get paid the same rates? Or does the level of idiocy accompanying your respective 'spam' attacks determine your respective remuneration?
Brian, take your hand off it or you'll go blind altogether. Use whatever visual accuity is left to you to read and learn (and preferably also understand) some REAL PRACTICAL PHYSICS and THEN come back and open your mouth. Otherwise you will be responsible for someone here dying of laughter. REALLY. Good luck!
PS: If you can't refute the above PRACTICAL CONVENTIONAL APPLIED PHYSICS observations with countering and consistent physics argument, then by all means resort to "shill" etc....as it's a running joke here that that's really the ONLY attempt at any 'counter argument' that the CTers have....in the absence of ANY PHYSICS whatsoever that will stand scrutiny.....even scrutiny from the youngest TRUE SCIENTIST VISITOR/MEMBER HERE AT PHYSORG. All together now........!
RC.
.
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Can you show where the evidence comes from that allows this opening statement -
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
No you cannot so it is not worth the paper it was written on and why any self respecting professional should put their name to what can only be called guess work we can only imagine.
Academic history anyway as we are now in a position where-
"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."
:-)
Hello brian!
Still spamming for 'click traffic' to your 'employers' paper/site? How much have you earned by now? Is that site one of the group of sites started as 'fronts' by terrorists who earn 'explosives/weapons' CASH through 'click traffic' on those sites? Have THEY 'suckered' enough 'click traffic' to finance their NEXT attack CELL somewhere in the world?
But even assuming that you are NOT 'mercenary/criminal' in any way, how do you explain away the fact that you seem to be missing the bleedingly obvious?
(1) You saw the raging fires in the vidoes.
(2) You have heard that office-fuel fires reach temps between 800C and 1100C.
(3) You have seen on the videos that the spray-on fireproofing was knocked off by the HUGE plane/jetfuel explosions that also took out some floors.
(4) You have read where the columns were WEAKENED/DISTORTED by high/differential HEATING.
(5) You must know by now that the design was COMPROMISED once the floor trusses buckled/expanded/contracted and biased the local failure modes of the WEAKENED/DISTORTED columns EVEN FURTHER.
(6) You KNOW that the TOP sections included an UNUSUAL AND EXTREMELY HEAVY/STRONG HAT TRUSS STRUCTURE (just ask Foxx) that would have ADDED GREATLY to the weight/momentum/distortion forces once the inner/outer columns DID fail from heat/distortions and LOSS OF INTEGRATED FLOOR-TRUSS SUPPORT.
So it's NOT TRUE that the LOCAL STRUCTURE WEIGHT got less the higher up one got...because between the impact floors and the HAT TRUSS etc, there was much MORE than the AVERAGE 'HEIGHT-SPREAD' WEIGHT LOADING' for that now EFFECTIVELY 'SEPARATED' segment.
(7) So the failure of the TOP section was CALAMITOUS and inevitable just because the COLUMNS WERE THINNER/WEAKER as one got higher...BUT THE LOCAL WEIGHT ON THOSE COLUMNS WAS GREATER because of that local 'top box' plus HAT TRUSS section now teetering on the lower structure.
Now that we have exposed your stupidity and or sheer ignorant perverseness, brian, what does your employer order you to 'spam' next? That YOU have a peer-reviewed paper of your own in the works? Or will you just follow their 'standing order' to spam for all you're worth for the 'Griffin' paper 'front' site for terrorists and/or con-artists looking for more 'sucker click' traffic?
You are a REAL joke, brian. Do you and newton and galdur and JamesX et al get paid the same rates? Or does the level of idiocy accompanying your respective 'spam' attacks determine your respective remuneration?
Brian, take your hand off it or you'll go blind altogether. Use whatever visual accuity is left to you to read and learn (and preferably also understand) some REAL PRACTICAL PHYSICS and THEN come back and open your mouth. Otherwise you will be responsible for someone here dying of laughter. REALLY. Good luck!
PS: If you can't refute the above PRACTICAL CONVENTIONAL APPLIED PHYSICS observations with countering and consistent physics argument, then by all means resort to "shill" etc....as it's a running joke here that that's really the ONLY attempt at any 'counter argument' that the CTers have....in the absence of ANY PHYSICS whatsoever that will stand scrutiny.....even scrutiny from the youngest TRUE SCIENTIST VISITOR/MEMBER HERE AT PHYSORG. All together now........!
RC.
.
QUOTE (brian+Feb 24 2006, 09:08 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 24 2006, 06:23 PM)
The time for obfuscation has been and gone -
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Can you show where the evidence comes from that allows this opening statement -
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
No you cannot so it is not worth the paper it was written on and why any self respecting professional should put their name to what can only be called guess work we can only imagine.
Academic history anyway as we are now in a position where-
"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."
:-)
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
by arthur
Personally I think most of what we are seeing is the effect of either material or elevators freefalling in the many elevator shafts and hitting bottom on the mecanical floors.
Sounds 'plausible', but weren't the elevator cables severed in the initial impact? There are numerous witnesses who mentioned such... but that was in the initial impact sequence (not an hour or so later). Doesn't make sense to me that the elevators would just hover until the building 'collapses'.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
by arthur
Which tells you MUCH MORE about the people who MAKE this absurd claim than ANYTHING about the WTC tower's collapse.
Ahhhh, yes... always have to throw that aspersion in, don't we?
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
Can you show where the evidence comes from that allows this opening statement -
"So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
No you cannot so it is not worth the paper it was written on and why any self respecting professional should put their name to what can only be called guess work we can only imagine.
Academic history anyway as we are now in a position where-
"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."
:-)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 24 2006, 06:23 PM)
The time for obfuscation has been and gone -
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
"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."
Dr Griffins "New Pearl Harbour" can be read free online at link below -
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2
I see you want to continue the spaming...
It's NOT just heating of the columns which the NIST said was a factor. Both this paper and the NIST final report are in agreement.
This is worth posting 4 times a day.
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
QUOTE
by arthur
She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire.
She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire.
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by arthur She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire. |
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
by arthur
Personally I think most of what we are seeing is the effect of either material or elevators freefalling in the many elevator shafts and hitting bottom on the mecanical floors.
Sounds 'plausible', but weren't the elevator cables severed in the initial impact? There are numerous witnesses who mentioned such... but that was in the initial impact sequence (not an hour or so later). Doesn't make sense to me that the elevators would just hover until the building 'collapses'.
QUOTE
by arthur
To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist.
To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by arthur To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist. |
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
by arthur
Which tells you MUCH MORE about the people who MAKE this absurd claim than ANYTHING about the WTC tower's collapse.
Ahhhh, yes... always have to throw that aspersion in, don't we?
Oh yeah... about this Amazing 'click-traffic' money-making scheme...
I can't seem to get hooked in with Halliburton and the rest of the money-makers in all of this, so... can someone please explain to me how I might make money by people merely clicking on my website? Man, if I could only figure out how to do that I might actually be able to afford the bandwidth costs on my own site (rather than paying for them out of my own pocket).
Please 'fill-us-in' on how to go about that ?
I can't seem to get hooked in with Halliburton and the rest of the money-makers in all of this, so... can someone please explain to me how I might make money by people merely clicking on my website? Man, if I could only figure out how to do that I might actually be able to afford the bandwidth costs on my own site (rather than paying for them out of my own pocket).
Please 'fill-us-in' on how to go about that ?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=67818
Well, I had long ago resolved to quit reading the unreal posts of 'Reality Check', but I had a few moments to spare today (and looking for some comedy)... read his latest wizardry response to brian.
Pfffttt.
What a waste of time.
Personally, I don't think anyone needs respond to this character... let the readers decide for themselves... and they'll ALL be looking for the 'ignore button'.
The last time I checked one of his posts, he seemed just foolishly ignorant on the questions under discussion...
in this latest posting, he seems to be feeling the frustration and anger of some of his compatriots.
Seems he is slipping rapidly into the Schneibsteronium personna.
('Money-making clicks' etc.)...
next it will be accusations that we are all supporting 'Rove' !!!
Oh... Reality... you are such a silly goose
Schneiby... How's the computer investigation coming ? Any revelations yet how 'that poster' attached the video-clip to the urology site
Hey... can you post that clip again, so we don't have to wade through the full hour-long presentation?
Send me the clip by PM and I'll cache it for you.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...1/WTC-A1-75.jpg
Well, I had long ago resolved to quit reading the unreal posts of 'Reality Check', but I had a few moments to spare today (and looking for some comedy)... read his latest wizardry response to brian.
Pfffttt.
What a waste of time.
Personally, I don't think anyone needs respond to this character... let the readers decide for themselves... and they'll ALL be looking for the 'ignore button'.
The last time I checked one of his posts, he seemed just foolishly ignorant on the questions under discussion...
in this latest posting, he seems to be feeling the frustration and anger of some of his compatriots.
Seems he is slipping rapidly into the Schneibsteronium personna.
('Money-making clicks' etc.)...
next it will be accusations that we are all supporting 'Rove' !!!
Oh... Reality... you are such a silly goose
Schneiby... How's the computer investigation coming ? Any revelations yet how 'that poster' attached the video-clip to the urology site
Hey... can you post that clip again, so we don't have to wade through the full hour-long presentation?
Send me the clip by PM and I'll cache it for you.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...1/WTC-A1-75.jpg
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 03:25 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2006, 02:58 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 24 2006, 05:40 AM)
This photograph was taken after the top of the South Tower began its fall:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...tower2_exp1.jpg
Here the demolition outpaces the falling debris. Notice it is the mechanical floors .
That puff of debris is on the mechanical floor. That should tell a normal person there are vents and other openings on those floors which help the cooling of the building. It's where lots of elevator equipment was for the elevators below the upper sky lobbies. In a sealed building (Assuming people in the building breath) you would need large ventilation systems, not only for the equipment but the people as well. What I see is the build up of pressure caused by the 'hypodermic needle effect' blowing debris out the path of least resistance. And what do you think would be the path of least resistance... The stairways? The Elevator shafts? The ventalation system? All of the above? If you answered 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' you get a cookie.
The proof is YOU DON'T HAVE THESE PUFFS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE!
If that is true, there should be no reason for the built up pressure being released on non-mechanical floors:
http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/wtc-small.1057.jpg
Well now were getting somewhere... At least you know the mecanical floors should be open and this effect could be normal.
You haven't proven those puffs aren't also from mechanical floors... But you also don't know where all the ventilation systems are in the building either. I doubt they stuck all the ventilation systems on two levels. But even if they did and that's isn't a mechanical floor you can't say that isn't the path of least resistance for the debris. The pressure will only build and find another way out. If you acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor then why do you think it can't build and blow out a few windows, say on a floor with open elevator doors or stairwells?
And you have yet to explain how a bomb blows up backward. How does a bomb show progressive strenght? I've never seen a CD do that...
In the first photo the supposed CD is apparently only occuring on about one half of one side of the floor space(at best). Those 'squibs' in the other photo would suggest even less involvement.
It again begs the question that IF the CD was supposed to start the collpase before the falling mass reached the CD floors then how would such wimpy demolitions or non-uniform placement of the charges accomplish the supposed removal of resistance to collapse?
Once again I point out that despite the attempts to show it via still photos, there is no video evidence that any of the building started moving before the gravity driven collapse progression reached any level.
According to Woods' theory this should be visible.
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
by arthur
Personally I think most of what we are seeing is the effect of either material or elevators freefalling in the many elevator shafts and hitting bottom on the mecanical floors.
Sounds 'plausible', but weren't the elevator cables severed in the initial impact? There are numerous witnesses who mentioned such... but that was in the initial impact sequence (not an hour or so later). Doesn't make sense to me that the elevators would just hover until the building 'collapses'.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
by arthur
Which tells you MUCH MORE about the people who MAKE this absurd claim than ANYTHING about the WTC tower's collapse.
Ahhhh, yes... always have to throw that aspersion in, don't we?
Hehehe. Talk about a laugh! OK Foxx, we'll put you in a silo about the scale of the towers. We'll load the TOP of the silo with some MILLIONS of POUNDS of Sand and STEEL GIRDERS and BEAMS from the VERY STRONG AND HEAVY HAT TRUSS and integral core immediately below it. Then we'll let the whole lot go bouncing into lower floors and outer walls and 'mixmastering' through the steel-framework of the lower core sections.
Let's see how much 'coherent force' this 'plug' of falling material delivers as it is re-compacted at EVERY SLIGHT HESITATION from hitting progressive floors as it 'pancakes' same progressively towards FOXX standing somewhere below.
Now let's see if we can find Foxx's splattered remains if the fires in the rubble haven't cleaned up for us.
Do you think Foxx that if all THAT 'rubble' was coming DOWN on you EFFECTIVELY CONSTRAINED TO FALL WITHIN THE TUBE until it is destroyed, that the air would be moved out of the way quicksmart at ANY LEVEL providing an escape route? Do you think the Millions of pounds of sand and steel would be pressuring DOWN at ALL? Do you think you'd feel any impact/pressure when it hit you?
Tick, tick, tick.....take your time Foxx, this is worth waiting for just for the entertainment value if not the physics.
Oh, and by the way, where do you think all that partitions, office furniture and equipment got PUSHED AGAINST when the planes came in? INTO THE CENTRE, AROUND/INTO THE CORE 'SPACES' GAPS AND SHAFTS, AND TO THE FAR SIDES OF MANY FLOORS, where they BURNED, heh? "Idiotic" is just not good enough when classifying some of your posts, "FOXX". And, where's your PHYSICS arguments?
RC.
.
I'd call them NIST...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
Please do NOT click this link...
somehow... someone... is making money simply if you click on this link ...
Don't go there... you might find what you DON'T WANT to know.
Gee... the next thing you know child pornography will be automatically be downloaded to your computer and you will be receiving a bill for thousands of dollars...
Don't Go There !!!
...Wave hands a little more.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...tower2_exp1.jpg
Here the demolition outpaces the falling debris. Notice it is the mechanical floors .
That puff of debris is on the mechanical floor. That should tell a normal person there are vents and other openings on those floors which help the cooling of the building. It's where lots of elevator equipment was for the elevators below the upper sky lobbies. In a sealed building (Assuming people in the building breath) you would need large ventilation systems, not only for the equipment but the people as well. What I see is the build up of pressure caused by the 'hypodermic needle effect' blowing debris out the path of least resistance. And what do you think would be the path of least resistance... The stairways? The Elevator shafts? The ventalation system? All of the above? If you answered 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' you get a cookie.
The proof is YOU DON'T HAVE THESE PUFFS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE!
If that is true, there should be no reason for the built up pressure being released on non-mechanical floors:
http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/wtc-small.1057.jpg
Well now were getting somewhere... At least you know the mecanical floors should be open and this effect could be normal.
You haven't proven those puffs aren't also from mechanical floors... But you also don't know where all the ventilation systems are in the building either. I doubt they stuck all the ventilation systems on two levels. But even if they did and that's isn't a mechanical floor you can't say that isn't the path of least resistance for the debris. The pressure will only build and find another way out. If you acknowledge the pressure can build and come out the mechanical floor then why do you think it can't build and blow out a few windows, say on a floor with open elevator doors or stairwells?
And you have yet to explain how a bomb blows up backward. How does a bomb show progressive strenght? I've never seen a CD do that...
In the first photo the supposed CD is apparently only occuring on about one half of one side of the floor space(at best). Those 'squibs' in the other photo would suggest even less involvement.
It again begs the question that IF the CD was supposed to start the collpase before the falling mass reached the CD floors then how would such wimpy demolitions or non-uniform placement of the charges accomplish the supposed removal of resistance to collapse?
Once again I point out that despite the attempts to show it via still photos, there is no video evidence that any of the building started moving before the gravity driven collapse progression reached any level.
According to Woods' theory this should be visible.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 10:43 PM)
QUOTE
by arthur
She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire.
She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire.
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by arthur She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire. |
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
by arthur
Personally I think most of what we are seeing is the effect of either material or elevators freefalling in the many elevator shafts and hitting bottom on the mecanical floors.
Sounds 'plausible', but weren't the elevator cables severed in the initial impact? There are numerous witnesses who mentioned such... but that was in the initial impact sequence (not an hour or so later). Doesn't make sense to me that the elevators would just hover until the building 'collapses'.
QUOTE
by arthur
To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist.
To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by arthur To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist. |
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
by arthur
Which tells you MUCH MORE about the people who MAKE this absurd claim than ANYTHING about the WTC tower's collapse.
Ahhhh, yes... always have to throw that aspersion in, don't we?
Hehehe. Talk about a laugh! OK Foxx, we'll put you in a silo about the scale of the towers. We'll load the TOP of the silo with some MILLIONS of POUNDS of Sand and STEEL GIRDERS and BEAMS from the VERY STRONG AND HEAVY HAT TRUSS and integral core immediately below it. Then we'll let the whole lot go bouncing into lower floors and outer walls and 'mixmastering' through the steel-framework of the lower core sections.
Let's see how much 'coherent force' this 'plug' of falling material delivers as it is re-compacted at EVERY SLIGHT HESITATION from hitting progressive floors as it 'pancakes' same progressively towards FOXX standing somewhere below.
Now let's see if we can find Foxx's splattered remains if the fires in the rubble haven't cleaned up for us.
Do you think Foxx that if all THAT 'rubble' was coming DOWN on you EFFECTIVELY CONSTRAINED TO FALL WITHIN THE TUBE until it is destroyed, that the air would be moved out of the way quicksmart at ANY LEVEL providing an escape route? Do you think the Millions of pounds of sand and steel would be pressuring DOWN at ALL? Do you think you'd feel any impact/pressure when it hit you?
Tick, tick, tick.....take your time Foxx, this is worth waiting for just for the entertainment value if not the physics.
Oh, and by the way, where do you think all that partitions, office furniture and equipment got PUSHED AGAINST when the planes came in? INTO THE CENTRE, AROUND/INTO THE CORE 'SPACES' GAPS AND SHAFTS, AND TO THE FAR SIDES OF MANY FLOORS, where they BURNED, heh? "Idiotic" is just not good enough when classifying some of your posts, "FOXX". And, where's your PHYSICS arguments?
RC.
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 10:50 PM)
Oh yeah... about this Amazing 'click-traffic' money-making scheme...
I can't seem to get hooked in with Halliburton and the rest of the money-makers in all of this, so... can someone please explain to me how I might make money by people merely clicking on my website? Man, if I could only figure out how to do that I might actually be able to afford the bandwidth costs on my own site (rather than paying for them out of my own pocket).
Please 'fill-us-in' on how to go about that ?
Hi Foxx!
What do you call someone who lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant when there is NO CONSISTENT/IRREFUTABLE PHYSICS arguments/evidence to justify any such 'controversy'?
What do you call someone who by doing this is either knowingly or unknowingly "shilling" (your definitions, Foxx) for all those who ARE using 'front' sites (like CT sites for instance, heh?) to make money from the 'sucker clicks' SENT THEIR WAY BY THOSE 'CRONIES' OF YOURS IN THE CLOWN CAR THAT REGULARLY AND WITHOUT FAIL post links to those terrorist-front sites making the CASH from sucker clicks to finance their NEXT outrage against innocent and guilty alike?
What do you call someone who has shifted and twisted himself into a corner that not even the youngest visitor/member to Physorg can miss?...BUT who nevertheless STILL persists in pandering (using lies and misrepresentations and scurrilous propaganda BUT NO PHYSICS) to those 'cronies' and 'suckers' who knowingly and/or unknowingly use YOUR SMOKESCREEN "CLOWN CONTROVERY" ACT to get MORE 'links' posted?
I know what I would call such a lying and miscreant person: "FOXX".
Ante up with the consistent/plausible PHYSICS arguments or be branded once and for all as a "FOXX". Synonymous with b*st*rd who aids and abets terrorists in their weapons/explosives money-making scams on the internet preying on the gullible and immature and ignorant for their 'click trafic'.
How about it Foxx...are you a lying, shilling "FOXX" knowingly or unknowingly?
RC.
.
I can't seem to get hooked in with Halliburton and the rest of the money-makers in all of this, so... can someone please explain to me how I might make money by people merely clicking on my website? Man, if I could only figure out how to do that I might actually be able to afford the bandwidth costs on my own site (rather than paying for them out of my own pocket).
Please 'fill-us-in' on how to go about that ?
Hi Foxx!
What do you call someone who lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant when there is NO CONSISTENT/IRREFUTABLE PHYSICS arguments/evidence to justify any such 'controversy'?
What do you call someone who by doing this is either knowingly or unknowingly "shilling" (your definitions, Foxx) for all those who ARE using 'front' sites (like CT sites for instance, heh?) to make money from the 'sucker clicks' SENT THEIR WAY BY THOSE 'CRONIES' OF YOURS IN THE CLOWN CAR THAT REGULARLY AND WITHOUT FAIL post links to those terrorist-front sites making the CASH from sucker clicks to finance their NEXT outrage against innocent and guilty alike?
What do you call someone who has shifted and twisted himself into a corner that not even the youngest visitor/member to Physorg can miss?...BUT who nevertheless STILL persists in pandering (using lies and misrepresentations and scurrilous propaganda BUT NO PHYSICS) to those 'cronies' and 'suckers' who knowingly and/or unknowingly use YOUR SMOKESCREEN "CLOWN CONTROVERY" ACT to get MORE 'links' posted?
I know what I would call such a lying and miscreant person: "FOXX".
Ante up with the consistent/plausible PHYSICS arguments or be branded once and for all as a "FOXX". Synonymous with b*st*rd who aids and abets terrorists in their weapons/explosives money-making scams on the internet preying on the gullible and immature and ignorant for their 'click trafic'.
How about it Foxx...are you a lying, shilling "FOXX" knowingly or unknowingly?
RC.
.
QUOTE
in un-reality
Hi Foxx!
What do you call someone who lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant when there is NO CONSISTENT/IRREFUTABLE PHYSICS arguments/evidence to justify any such 'controversy'?
Hi Foxx!
What do you call someone who lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant when there is NO CONSISTENT/IRREFUTABLE PHYSICS arguments/evidence to justify any such 'controversy'?
I'd call them NIST...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
Please do NOT click this link...
somehow... someone... is making money simply if you click on this link ...
Don't go there... you might find what you DON'T WANT to know.
Gee... the next thing you know child pornography will be automatically be downloaded to your computer and you will be receiving a bill for thousands of dollars...
Don't Go There !!!
...Wave hands a little more.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 24 2006, 11:41 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 10:50 PM)
Oh yeah... about this Amazing 'click-traffic' money-making scheme...
I can't seem to get hooked in with Halliburton and the rest of the money-makers in all of this, so... can someone please explain to me how I might make money by people merely clicking on my website? Man, if I could only figure out how to do that I might actually be able to afford the bandwidth costs on my own site (rather than paying for them out of my own pocket).
Please 'fill-us-in' on how to go about that ?
Hi Foxx!
What do you call someone who lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant when there is NO CONSISTENT/IRREFUTABLE PHYSICS arguments/evidence to justify any such 'controversy'?
What do you call someone who by doing this is either knowingly or unknowingly "shilling" (your definitions, Foxx) for all those who ARE using 'front' sites (like CT sites for instance, heh?) to make money from the 'sucker clicks' SENT THEIR WAY BY THOSE 'CRONIES' OF YOURS IN THE CLOWN CAR THAT REGULARLY AND WITHOUT FAIL post links to those terrorist-front sites making the CASH from sucker clicks to finance their NEXT outrage against innocent and guilty alike?
What do you call someone who has shifted and twisted himself into a corner that not even the youngest visitor/member to Physorg can miss?...BUT who nevertheless STILL persists in pandering (using lies and misrepresentations and scurrilous propaganda BUT NO PHYSICS) to those 'cronies' and 'suckers' who knowingly and/or unknowingly use YOUR SMOKESCREEN "CLOWN CONTROVERY" ACT to get MORE 'links' posted?
I know what I would call such a lying and miscreant person: "FOXX".
Ante up with the consistent/plausible PHYSICS arguments or be branded once and for all as a "FOXX". Synonymous with b*st*rd who aids and abets terrorists in their weapons/explosives money-making scams on the internet preying on the gullible and immature and ignorant for their 'click trafic'.
How about it Foxx...are you a lying, shilling "FOXX" knowingly or unknowingly?
RC.
.
I'd call them NIST.
Well! I didn't expect such a conmprehensive admission of the truth of my above post! Thanks "FOXX"; you have just proved THREE things from your own mouth...
(1) You have chosen only a "PARTIAL" quote to reply to: hence you are a TWISTER.
(2) In answering even that partial quote you pointedly IGNORED one of the damning 'intents/activities' for a "FOXX"; to wit:
".....lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant....".
And it's NOT NIST who WANTS a' controversy' where there is none, heh? THAT is what fits YOUR agenda to a "T", heh "FOXX"? No contest, mate!
(3) You, BY PURPOSEFULLY DECLINING TO ANSWER THE OTHER DESCRIPTIONS of your "FOXXINESS" activities/intents, have perversely CONFIRMED THEIR "BULLSEYE" ACCURACY IN YOUR CASE.
Thanks for your OWN UNKNOWING abject failure to even attempt to defend yourself against all here branding you henceforth as just another pathetic, impotent, miscreant, dime-a-dozen "FOXX"!
RC.
.
I'd call them NIST...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
Please do NOT click this link...
somehow... someone... is making money simply if you click on this link ...
Don't go there... you might find what you DON'T WANT to know.
Gee... the next thing you know child pornography will be automatically be downloaded to your computer and you will be receiving a bill for thousands of dollars...
Don't Go There !!!
...Wave hands a little more.
Hey "FOXX".
Still proving me right on the money by AGAIN pointedly ignoring that you are AIDING AND ABETTING ALL THOSE THAT DO use your "FOXX" antics to allow them to insert 'spamming' and terrorist-moneymaking site links in a thread containing plenty of physics from others to prove that YOU are a lying twister interested only in providing a "phantom controversy" to COVER for those cronies of yours who do their dirty work with your full knowledge and encouragement. By your own definition you are a "shill" of the worst kind; in other words, a "FOXX"!
RC.
.
How the mighty have fallen! Are you reduced to this? Is this the sum total of your "PHYSICS" counter-argument?
Your position must be even more untenable than ever? What's the matter?....too much TRUTH in what I have just accused you of IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REAL AND GENUINE CONSISTENT PHYSICS TO SUPPORT YOUR SCURRILOUS ACTIVITIES IN A SCIENCE FORUM?
Too bad, "FOXX". You coalda bin a contender for the most wifully miscreant and corrupt 'intelligence' I have encountered in a long time! Cheers!
RC
Is this really RC?
He's starting to sound more & more like a Schneiby clone.
Whatever happened to that 'rational' (and I use the term 'rational' loosely) 'Reality check' who just 'popped-in' on his way to making lunch...
(Disinterested & 'objective' as he tried to appear)
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
==> I said "ON FIRE". FOXX translates this to: "RAGING INFERNO", what a putz.
==> Can I PROVE it was ON FIRE? no, Why? no survivors above impact floor to provide this evidence. BUT, let me ask you a question, if YOU are in a life or death situation would DRYWALL keep you from escaping????
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
==> I said "ON FIRE". FOXX translates this to: "RAGING INFERNO", what a putz.
==> Can I PROVE it was ON FIRE? no, Why? no survivors above impact floor to provide this evidence. BUT, let me ask you a question, if YOU are in a life or death situation would DRYWALL keep you from escaping????
by arthur
Personally I think most of what we are seeing is the effect of either material or elevators freefalling in the many elevator shafts and hitting bottom on the mecanical floors.
Sounds 'plausible', but weren't the elevator cables severed in the initial impact? There are numerous witnesses who mentioned such... but that was in the initial impact sequence (not an hour or so later). Doesn't make sense to me that the elevators would just hover until the building 'collapses'.
===> Based on the NIST simulation SOME elevator cables were certainly cut at impact, but not ALL of them were. Remember only 9 or so of the core columns in that tower were severed by the impact, So SOME elevators would have been in their shafts until the collapse, then with the support (upper mech floor) failing, so would they.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
===> I am not confusing the terms PROOF and EVIDENCE, CTers are. The EVIDENCE is just blasts of air/debris ahead of the collapse, yet they are ALWAYS SQUIBS to the CT'ers, which IMPLIES PROOF OF WHAT CAUSED THE AIR/DEBRIS BLASTS.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
===> Pretty simplistic analysis Foxx. How about a more reasonable, both the impacting side and the impacted side are disintegrating, but the interface betwen the two is nearly a solid plug as it progresses further down the tower. And while the EXACT cause of the FEW air blasts is NOT known, SUPPOSING THEM TO BE SQUIBS is moronic, absent OTHER evidence that indicates that squibs were present. Futher, in the VIDEO evidence the supposed squibs don't appear like a supersonic blast front, they GROW over multiple frames of the video. WAY TOO SLOW for a High Explosive. Further, if there WERE sufficient High Explosives to sever most of the core columns, the BLAST would be EXTENSIVE since there is no BLAST shielding. Further if there were sufficient High Explosives on MULTIPLE floors to cause the building to collapse from CD in a TOP DOWN FASHION, meaning they would be, as you put it, removing the resistance just in time, then there would be a LARGE SET of clearly AUDIBLE HIGH EXPLSOIVE CRACKS as they went off, X floors by X floors on ALL of the AUDIO records of the day. These SHARP CRACKS, which would be caused from the SUPERSONIC shock waves from HIGH EXPLOSIVES are VERY DISTINCT but there is NOT ONE AUDIO recording from that day that contains those SHARP CRACKS. You only have to listen to a few of the actual Controlled Demolitions to hear that DISTINCTIVE SOUND.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
===> I am not confusing the terms PROOF and EVIDENCE, CTers are. The EVIDENCE is just blasts of air/debris ahead of the collapse, yet they are ALWAYS SQUIBS to the CT'ers, which IMPLIES PROOF OF WHAT CAUSED THE AIR/DEBRIS BLASTS.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
===> Pretty simplistic analysis Foxx. How about a more reasonable, both the impacting side and the impacted side are disintegrating, but the interface betwen the two is nearly a solid plug as it progresses further down the tower. And while the EXACT cause of the FEW air blasts is NOT known, SUPPOSING THEM TO BE SQUIBS is moronic, absent OTHER evidence that indicates that squibs were present. Futher, in the VIDEO evidence the supposed squibs don't appear like a supersonic blast front, they GROW over multiple frames of the video. WAY TOO SLOW for a High Explosive. Further, if there WERE sufficient High Explosives to sever most of the core columns, the BLAST would be EXTENSIVE since there is no BLAST shielding. Further if there were sufficient High Explosives on MULTIPLE floors to cause the building to collapse from CD in a TOP DOWN FASHION, meaning they would be, as you put it, removing the resistance just in time, then there would be a LARGE SET of clearly AUDIBLE HIGH EXPLSOIVE CRACKS as they went off, X floors by X floors on ALL of the AUDIO records of the day. These SHARP CRACKS, which would be caused from the SUPERSONIC shock waves from HIGH EXPLOSIVES are VERY DISTINCT but there is NOT ONE AUDIO recording from that day that contains those SHARP CRACKS. You only have to listen to a few of the actual Controlled Demolitions to hear that DISTINCTIVE SOUND.
by arthur
Which tells you MUCH MORE about the people who MAKE this absurd claim than ANYTHING about the WTC tower's collapse.
Ahhhh, yes... always have to throw that aspersion in, don't we?
===> Usually only when MORONS are involved, particularly ones who DEFEND other's MORONIC statments.
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
==> I said "ON FIRE". FOXX translates this to: "RAGING INFERNO", what a putz.
==> Can I PROVE it was ON FIRE? no, Why? no survivors above impact floor to provide this evidence. BUT, let me ask you a question, if YOU are in a life or death situation would DRYWALL keep you from escaping????
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
==> I said "ON FIRE". FOXX translates this to: "RAGING INFERNO", what a putz.
==> Can I PROVE it was ON FIRE? no, Why? no survivors above impact floor to provide this evidence. BUT, let me ask you a question, if YOU are in a life or death situation would DRYWALL keep you from escaping????
by arthur
Personally I think most of what we are seeing is the effect of either material or elevators freefalling in the many elevator shafts and hitting bottom on the mecanical floors.
Sounds 'plausible', but weren't the elevator cables severed in the initial impact? There are numerous witnesses who mentioned such... but that was in the initial impact sequence (not an hour or so later). Doesn't make sense to me that the elevators would just hover until the building 'collapses'.
===> Based on the NIST simulation SOME elevator cables were certainly cut at impact, but not ALL of them were. Remember only 9 or so of the core columns in that tower were severed by the impact, So SOME elevators would have been in their shafts until the collapse, then with the support (upper mech floor) failing, so would they.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
===> I am not confusing the terms PROOF and EVIDENCE, CTers are. The EVIDENCE is just blasts of air/debris ahead of the collapse, yet they are ALWAYS SQUIBS to the CT'ers, which IMPLIES PROOF OF WHAT CAUSED THE AIR/DEBRIS BLASTS.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
===> Pretty simplistic analysis Foxx. How about a more reasonable, both the impacting side and the impacted side are disintegrating, but the interface betwen the two is nearly a solid plug as it progresses further down the tower. And while the EXACT cause of the FEW air blasts is NOT known, SUPPOSING THEM TO BE SQUIBS is moronic, absent OTHER evidence that indicates that squibs were present. Futher, in the VIDEO evidence the supposed squibs don't appear like a supersonic blast front, they GROW over multiple frames of the video. WAY TOO SLOW for a High Explosive. Further, if there WERE sufficient High Explosives to sever most of the core columns, the BLAST would be EXTENSIVE since there is no BLAST shielding. Further if there were sufficient High Explosives on MULTIPLE floors to cause the building to collapse from CD in a TOP DOWN FASHION, meaning they would be, as you put it, removing the resistance just in time, then there would be a LARGE SET of clearly AUDIBLE HIGH EXPLSOIVE CRACKS as they went off, X floors by X floors on ALL of the AUDIO records of the day. These SHARP CRACKS, which would be caused from the SUPERSONIC shock waves from HIGH EXPLOSIVES are VERY DISTINCT but there is NOT ONE AUDIO recording from that day that contains those SHARP CRACKS. You only have to listen to a few of the actual Controlled Demolitions to hear that DISTINCTIVE SOUND.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
===> I am not confusing the terms PROOF and EVIDENCE, CTers are. The EVIDENCE is just blasts of air/debris ahead of the collapse, yet they are ALWAYS SQUIBS to the CT'ers, which IMPLIES PROOF OF WHAT CAUSED THE AIR/DEBRIS BLASTS.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
===> Pretty simplistic analysis Foxx. How about a more reasonable, both the impacting side and the impacted side are disintegrating, but the interface betwen the two is nearly a solid plug as it progresses further down the tower. And while the EXACT cause of the FEW air blasts is NOT known, SUPPOSING THEM TO BE SQUIBS is moronic, absent OTHER evidence that indicates that squibs were present. Futher, in the VIDEO evidence the supposed squibs don't appear like a supersonic blast front, they GROW over multiple frames of the video. WAY TOO SLOW for a High Explosive. Further, if there WERE sufficient High Explosives to sever most of the core columns, the BLAST would be EXTENSIVE since there is no BLAST shielding. Further if there were sufficient High Explosives on MULTIPLE floors to cause the building to collapse from CD in a TOP DOWN FASHION, meaning they would be, as you put it, removing the resistance just in time, then there would be a LARGE SET of clearly AUDIBLE HIGH EXPLSOIVE CRACKS as they went off, X floors by X floors on ALL of the AUDIO records of the day. These SHARP CRACKS, which would be caused from the SUPERSONIC shock waves from HIGH EXPLOSIVES are VERY DISTINCT but there is NOT ONE AUDIO recording from that day that contains those SHARP CRACKS. You only have to listen to a few of the actual Controlled Demolitions to hear that DISTINCTIVE SOUND.
by arthur
Which tells you MUCH MORE about the people who MAKE this absurd claim than ANYTHING about the WTC tower's collapse.
Ahhhh, yes... always have to throw that aspersion in, don't we?
===> Usually only when MORONS are involved, particularly ones who DEFEND other's MORONIC statments.
Then please explain why these 'puffs of dust' were observed to have proceeded UP the building face on WTC 7 ? This seems to fly in the face of your 'preferred' explainations?...
I'm sure you can 'explain' this realistically within your 'piston theory'.
So tell us all about it. I await in great anticipation
BTW --- do you have a preferred 'time of collapse' 9... 12... 15 seconds, and ANY evidence to support your preferred time?
Oh, I know you will do acrobatics to avoid this question... but I thought I would just ask anyway...
BTW --- do you have a preferred 'time of collapse' 9... 12... 15 seconds, and ANY evidence to support your preferred time?
Oh, I know you will do acrobatics to avoid this question... but I thought I would just ask anyway...
Do Acrobatics to avoid this question?
Why?
I have no PREFERRED TIME.
All I know is that it is some seconds longer than free fall speed simply because I can see material nearing the ground while the disintegration of the towers is as many as 40 floors behind. Since the dust cloud obscures the last seconds of the collapse, in my opinion, it is not possible to accurately time the full collapse.
What do I believe?
I BELIEVE that the collapse of both towers probably slowed greatly as they neared the ground levels, but we can't see this because its hidden by the dust cloud.
But hey, that's just what I THINK might have happened.
I don't expect that anyone to use what I BELIEVE as evidence for anything.
Arthur
I can't seem to get hooked in with Halliburton and the rest of the money-makers in all of this, so... can someone please explain to me how I might make money by people merely clicking on my website? Man, if I could only figure out how to do that I might actually be able to afford the bandwidth costs on my own site (rather than paying for them out of my own pocket).
Please 'fill-us-in' on how to go about that ?
Hi Foxx!
What do you call someone who lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant when there is NO CONSISTENT/IRREFUTABLE PHYSICS arguments/evidence to justify any such 'controversy'?
What do you call someone who by doing this is either knowingly or unknowingly "shilling" (your definitions, Foxx) for all those who ARE using 'front' sites (like CT sites for instance, heh?) to make money from the 'sucker clicks' SENT THEIR WAY BY THOSE 'CRONIES' OF YOURS IN THE CLOWN CAR THAT REGULARLY AND WITHOUT FAIL post links to those terrorist-front sites making the CASH from sucker clicks to finance their NEXT outrage against innocent and guilty alike?
What do you call someone who has shifted and twisted himself into a corner that not even the youngest visitor/member to Physorg can miss?...BUT who nevertheless STILL persists in pandering (using lies and misrepresentations and scurrilous propaganda BUT NO PHYSICS) to those 'cronies' and 'suckers' who knowingly and/or unknowingly use YOUR SMOKESCREEN "CLOWN CONTROVERY" ACT to get MORE 'links' posted?
I know what I would call such a lying and miscreant person: "FOXX".
Ante up with the consistent/plausible PHYSICS arguments or be branded once and for all as a "FOXX". Synonymous with b*st*rd who aids and abets terrorists in their weapons/explosives money-making scams on the internet preying on the gullible and immature and ignorant for their 'click trafic'.
How about it Foxx...are you a lying, shilling "FOXX" knowingly or unknowingly?
RC.
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 11:58 PM)
QUOTE
in un-reality
Hi Foxx!
What do you call someone who lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant when there is NO CONSISTENT/IRREFUTABLE PHYSICS arguments/evidence to justify any such 'controversy'?
Hi Foxx!
What do you call someone who lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant when there is NO CONSISTENT/IRREFUTABLE PHYSICS arguments/evidence to justify any such 'controversy'?
I'd call them NIST.
Well! I didn't expect such a conmprehensive admission of the truth of my above post! Thanks "FOXX"; you have just proved THREE things from your own mouth...
(1) You have chosen only a "PARTIAL" quote to reply to: hence you are a TWISTER.
(2) In answering even that partial quote you pointedly IGNORED one of the damning 'intents/activities' for a "FOXX"; to wit:
".....lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant....".
And it's NOT NIST who WANTS a' controversy' where there is none, heh? THAT is what fits YOUR agenda to a "T", heh "FOXX"? No contest, mate!
(3) You, BY PURPOSEFULLY DECLINING TO ANSWER THE OTHER DESCRIPTIONS of your "FOXXINESS" activities/intents, have perversely CONFIRMED THEIR "BULLSEYE" ACCURACY IN YOUR CASE.
Thanks for your OWN UNKNOWING abject failure to even attempt to defend yourself against all here branding you henceforth as just another pathetic, impotent, miscreant, dime-a-dozen "FOXX"!
RC.
.
Thanks RC... they don't call me 'FOXX' for nothing
metamars, please look again at the ramifications of the following graph.
ALL... please confirm the actual time of collapse (from your viewpoint)...
was it 9.6 seconds... 11.8 seconds... 16.5 seconds? Is there a consensus here regarding the actual fall-time?
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan.../WTC-A1-150.jpg
metamars, please look again at the ramifications of the following graph.
ALL... please confirm the actual time of collapse (from your viewpoint)...
was it 9.6 seconds... 11.8 seconds... 16.5 seconds? Is there a consensus here regarding the actual fall-time?
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan.../WTC-A1-150.jpg
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 11:58 PM)
QUOTE
in un-reality
Hi Foxx!
What do you call someone who lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant when there is NO CONSISTENT/IRREFUTABLE PHYSICS arguments/evidence to justify any such 'controversy'?
Hi Foxx!
What do you call someone who lies, distorts and propagandises just to whip up 'controversy' among the gullible and ignorant when there is NO CONSISTENT/IRREFUTABLE PHYSICS arguments/evidence to justify any such 'controversy'?
I'd call them NIST...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
Please do NOT click this link...
somehow... someone... is making money simply if you click on this link ...
Don't go there... you might find what you DON'T WANT to know.
Gee... the next thing you know child pornography will be automatically be downloaded to your computer and you will be receiving a bill for thousands of dollars...
Don't Go There !!!
...Wave hands a little more.
Hey "FOXX".
Still proving me right on the money by AGAIN pointedly ignoring that you are AIDING AND ABETTING ALL THOSE THAT DO use your "FOXX" antics to allow them to insert 'spamming' and terrorist-moneymaking site links in a thread containing plenty of physics from others to prove that YOU are a lying twister interested only in providing a "phantom controversy" to COVER for those cronies of yours who do their dirty work with your full knowledge and encouragement. By your own definition you are a "shill" of the worst kind; in other words, a "FOXX"!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 12:20 AM)
Thanks RC... they don't call me 'FOXX' for nothing
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan.../WTC-A1-150.jpg
How the mighty have fallen! Are you reduced to this? Is this the sum total of your "PHYSICS" counter-argument?
Your position must be even more untenable than ever? What's the matter?....too much TRUTH in what I have just accused you of IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REAL AND GENUINE CONSISTENT PHYSICS TO SUPPORT YOUR SCURRILOUS ACTIVITIES IN A SCIENCE FORUM?
Too bad, "FOXX". You coulda bin a contender for the most wifully miscreant and corrupt 'intelligence' I have encountered in a long time! Cheers!
PS: There's one of your cronies (or 'echos') now, "FOXX"! Just in time to elicit poignant laughter from the Physorg crowd watching you falling on your own very pointed lies. billybats to the clown car! Paging billybats! Please report to "FOXX" at the clown car immediately. He has your paycheck for you. That is all. Dirty money, billybats. Enjoy it if you can.
RC.
.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan.../WTC-A1-150.jpg
How the mighty have fallen! Are you reduced to this? Is this the sum total of your "PHYSICS" counter-argument?
Your position must be even more untenable than ever? What's the matter?....too much TRUTH in what I have just accused you of IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REAL AND GENUINE CONSISTENT PHYSICS TO SUPPORT YOUR SCURRILOUS ACTIVITIES IN A SCIENCE FORUM?
Too bad, "FOXX". You coulda bin a contender for the most wifully miscreant and corrupt 'intelligence' I have encountered in a long time! Cheers!
PS: There's one of your cronies (or 'echos') now, "FOXX"! Just in time to elicit poignant laughter from the Physorg crowd watching you falling on your own very pointed lies. billybats to the clown car! Paging billybats! Please report to "FOXX" at the clown car immediately. He has your paycheck for you. That is all. Dirty money, billybats. Enjoy it if you can.
RC.
.
QUOTE
How the mighty have fallen! Are you reduced to this? Is this the sum total of your "PHYSICS" counter-argument?
Your position must be even more untenable than ever? What's the matter?....too much TRUTH in what I have just accused you of IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REAL AND GENUINE CONSISTENT PHYSICS TO SUPPORT YOUR SCURRILOUS ACTIVITIES IN A SCIENCE FORUM?
Too bad, "FOXX". You coalda bin a contender for the most wifully miscreant and corrupt 'intelligence' I have encountered in a long time! Cheers!
RC
Is this really RC?
He's starting to sound more & more like a Schneiby clone.
Whatever happened to that 'rational' (and I use the term 'rational' loosely) 'Reality check' who just 'popped-in' on his way to making lunch...
(Disinterested & 'objective' as he tried to appear)
ALL... please confirm the actual time of collapse (from your viewpoint)...
was it 9.6 seconds... 11.8 seconds... 16.5 seconds? Is there a consensus here regarding the actual fall-time?
Please present your preferred time, and the evidence you wish to present to support that time.
Thanks.
was it 9.6 seconds... 11.8 seconds... 16.5 seconds? Is there a consensus here regarding the actual fall-time?
Please present your preferred time, and the evidence you wish to present to support that time.
Thanks.
QUOTE
by arthur
She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire.
She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire.
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
==> I said "ON FIRE". FOXX translates this to: "RAGING INFERNO", what a putz.
==> Can I PROVE it was ON FIRE? no, Why? no survivors above impact floor to provide this evidence. BUT, let me ask you a question, if YOU are in a life or death situation would DRYWALL keep you from escaping????
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by arthur She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire. |
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
==> I said "ON FIRE". FOXX translates this to: "RAGING INFERNO", what a putz.
==> Can I PROVE it was ON FIRE? no, Why? no survivors above impact floor to provide this evidence. BUT, let me ask you a question, if YOU are in a life or death situation would DRYWALL keep you from escaping????
by arthur
Personally I think most of what we are seeing is the effect of either material or elevators freefalling in the many elevator shafts and hitting bottom on the mecanical floors.
Sounds 'plausible', but weren't the elevator cables severed in the initial impact? There are numerous witnesses who mentioned such... but that was in the initial impact sequence (not an hour or so later). Doesn't make sense to me that the elevators would just hover until the building 'collapses'.
===> Based on the NIST simulation SOME elevator cables were certainly cut at impact, but not ALL of them were. Remember only 9 or so of the core columns in that tower were severed by the impact, So SOME elevators would have been in their shafts until the collapse, then with the support (upper mech floor) failing, so would they.
QUOTE
by arthur
To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist.
To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
===> I am not confusing the terms PROOF and EVIDENCE, CTers are. The EVIDENCE is just blasts of air/debris ahead of the collapse, yet they are ALWAYS SQUIBS to the CT'ers, which IMPLIES PROOF OF WHAT CAUSED THE AIR/DEBRIS BLASTS.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
===> Pretty simplistic analysis Foxx. How about a more reasonable, both the impacting side and the impacted side are disintegrating, but the interface betwen the two is nearly a solid plug as it progresses further down the tower. And while the EXACT cause of the FEW air blasts is NOT known, SUPPOSING THEM TO BE SQUIBS is moronic, absent OTHER evidence that indicates that squibs were present. Futher, in the VIDEO evidence the supposed squibs don't appear like a supersonic blast front, they GROW over multiple frames of the video. WAY TOO SLOW for a High Explosive. Further, if there WERE sufficient High Explosives to sever most of the core columns, the BLAST would be EXTENSIVE since there is no BLAST shielding. Further if there were sufficient High Explosives on MULTIPLE floors to cause the building to collapse from CD in a TOP DOWN FASHION, meaning they would be, as you put it, removing the resistance just in time, then there would be a LARGE SET of clearly AUDIBLE HIGH EXPLSOIVE CRACKS as they went off, X floors by X floors on ALL of the AUDIO records of the day. These SHARP CRACKS, which would be caused from the SUPERSONIC shock waves from HIGH EXPLOSIVES are VERY DISTINCT but there is NOT ONE AUDIO recording from that day that contains those SHARP CRACKS. You only have to listen to a few of the actual Controlled Demolitions to hear that DISTINCTIVE SOUND.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by arthur To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist. |
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
===> I am not confusing the terms PROOF and EVIDENCE, CTers are. The EVIDENCE is just blasts of air/debris ahead of the collapse, yet they are ALWAYS SQUIBS to the CT'ers, which IMPLIES PROOF OF WHAT CAUSED THE AIR/DEBRIS BLASTS.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
===> Pretty simplistic analysis Foxx. How about a more reasonable, both the impacting side and the impacted side are disintegrating, but the interface betwen the two is nearly a solid plug as it progresses further down the tower. And while the EXACT cause of the FEW air blasts is NOT known, SUPPOSING THEM TO BE SQUIBS is moronic, absent OTHER evidence that indicates that squibs were present. Futher, in the VIDEO evidence the supposed squibs don't appear like a supersonic blast front, they GROW over multiple frames of the video. WAY TOO SLOW for a High Explosive. Further, if there WERE sufficient High Explosives to sever most of the core columns, the BLAST would be EXTENSIVE since there is no BLAST shielding. Further if there were sufficient High Explosives on MULTIPLE floors to cause the building to collapse from CD in a TOP DOWN FASHION, meaning they would be, as you put it, removing the resistance just in time, then there would be a LARGE SET of clearly AUDIBLE HIGH EXPLSOIVE CRACKS as they went off, X floors by X floors on ALL of the AUDIO records of the day. These SHARP CRACKS, which would be caused from the SUPERSONIC shock waves from HIGH EXPLOSIVES are VERY DISTINCT but there is NOT ONE AUDIO recording from that day that contains those SHARP CRACKS. You only have to listen to a few of the actual Controlled Demolitions to hear that DISTINCTIVE SOUND.
by arthur
Which tells you MUCH MORE about the people who MAKE this absurd claim than ANYTHING about the WTC tower's collapse.
Ahhhh, yes... always have to throw that aspersion in, don't we?
===> Usually only when MORONS are involved, particularly ones who DEFEND other's MORONIC statments.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 01:25 AM)
QUOTE
by arthur
She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire.
She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire.
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
==> I said "ON FIRE". FOXX translates this to: "RAGING INFERNO", what a putz.
==> Can I PROVE it was ON FIRE? no, Why? no survivors above impact floor to provide this evidence. BUT, let me ask you a question, if YOU are in a life or death situation would DRYWALL keep you from escaping????
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by arthur She is on the 94th floor, the lowest floor with external damage and can't escape because all the stairways are in the core area and the core is on on fire. |
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
I've heard witness testimony that it was blocked by drywall debris, but that's the first I've heard from any witnesses that the core was a raging inferno. The few witnesses who were lucky enough to escape never spoke of raging fires in the core that I can recall.
Can you provide some references or evidence of this proclamation?
==> I said "ON FIRE". FOXX translates this to: "RAGING INFERNO", what a putz.
==> Can I PROVE it was ON FIRE? no, Why? no survivors above impact floor to provide this evidence. BUT, let me ask you a question, if YOU are in a life or death situation would DRYWALL keep you from escaping????
by arthur
Personally I think most of what we are seeing is the effect of either material or elevators freefalling in the many elevator shafts and hitting bottom on the mecanical floors.
Sounds 'plausible', but weren't the elevator cables severed in the initial impact? There are numerous witnesses who mentioned such... but that was in the initial impact sequence (not an hour or so later). Doesn't make sense to me that the elevators would just hover until the building 'collapses'.
===> Based on the NIST simulation SOME elevator cables were certainly cut at impact, but not ALL of them were. Remember only 9 or so of the core columns in that tower were severed by the impact, So SOME elevators would have been in their shafts until the collapse, then with the support (upper mech floor) failing, so would they.
QUOTE
by arthur
To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist.
To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist.
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
===> I am not confusing the terms PROOF and EVIDENCE, CTers are. The EVIDENCE is just blasts of air/debris ahead of the collapse, yet they are ALWAYS SQUIBS to the CT'ers, which IMPLIES PROOF OF WHAT CAUSED THE AIR/DEBRIS BLASTS.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
===> Pretty simplistic analysis Foxx. How about a more reasonable, both the impacting side and the impacted side are disintegrating, but the interface betwen the two is nearly a solid plug as it progresses further down the tower. And while the EXACT cause of the FEW air blasts is NOT known, SUPPOSING THEM TO BE SQUIBS is moronic, absent OTHER evidence that indicates that squibs were present. Futher, in the VIDEO evidence the supposed squibs don't appear like a supersonic blast front, they GROW over multiple frames of the video. WAY TOO SLOW for a High Explosive. Further, if there WERE sufficient High Explosives to sever most of the core columns, the BLAST would be EXTENSIVE since there is no BLAST shielding. Further if there were sufficient High Explosives on MULTIPLE floors to cause the building to collapse from CD in a TOP DOWN FASHION, meaning they would be, as you put it, removing the resistance just in time, then there would be a LARGE SET of clearly AUDIBLE HIGH EXPLSOIVE CRACKS as they went off, X floors by X floors on ALL of the AUDIO records of the day. These SHARP CRACKS, which would be caused from the SUPERSONIC shock waves from HIGH EXPLOSIVES are VERY DISTINCT but there is NOT ONE AUDIO recording from that day that contains those SHARP CRACKS. You only have to listen to a few of the actual Controlled Demolitions to hear that DISTINCTIVE SOUND.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by arthur To say, that because one sees a random blast of air/debris that it is PROOF that it is a High Explosive is preposterous, absent OTHER proof that they exist. |
I think you may be confusing the terms 'proof' & 'evidence'. You emphasize 'PROOF' as a strawman.
This is not empirical 'proof' of anything.
It is just 'evidence' that when taken in the full context, shows that the official story just does NOT add up.
===> I am not confusing the terms PROOF and EVIDENCE, CTers are. The EVIDENCE is just blasts of air/debris ahead of the collapse, yet they are ALWAYS SQUIBS to the CT'ers, which IMPLIES PROOF OF WHAT CAUSED THE AIR/DEBRIS BLASTS.
You cannot have a 'piston effect' while the upper portion is disintegrating into huge quantities of dust before even reaching the ground. The upper (so-called-piston) was disintegrating long before reaching the ground in 'mid-air' (so-to-speak).
How does that occur without the additional input of energy?
If the upper portion was disintegrating then all pressurization would be lost to lower floors having easier escape paths at the disintegrating sections.
===> Pretty simplistic analysis Foxx. How about a more reasonable, both the impacting side and the impacted side are disintegrating, but the interface betwen the two is nearly a solid plug as it progresses further down the tower. And while the EXACT cause of the FEW air blasts is NOT known, SUPPOSING THEM TO BE SQUIBS is moronic, absent OTHER evidence that indicates that squibs were present. Futher, in the VIDEO evidence the supposed squibs don't appear like a supersonic blast front, they GROW over multiple frames of the video. WAY TOO SLOW for a High Explosive. Further, if there WERE sufficient High Explosives to sever most of the core columns, the BLAST would be EXTENSIVE since there is no BLAST shielding. Further if there were sufficient High Explosives on MULTIPLE floors to cause the building to collapse from CD in a TOP DOWN FASHION, meaning they would be, as you put it, removing the resistance just in time, then there would be a LARGE SET of clearly AUDIBLE HIGH EXPLSOIVE CRACKS as they went off, X floors by X floors on ALL of the AUDIO records of the day. These SHARP CRACKS, which would be caused from the SUPERSONIC shock waves from HIGH EXPLOSIVES are VERY DISTINCT but there is NOT ONE AUDIO recording from that day that contains those SHARP CRACKS. You only have to listen to a few of the actual Controlled Demolitions to hear that DISTINCTIVE SOUND.
by arthur
Which tells you MUCH MORE about the people who MAKE this absurd claim than ANYTHING about the WTC tower's collapse.
Ahhhh, yes... always have to throw that aspersion in, don't we?
===> Usually only when MORONS are involved, particularly ones who DEFEND other's MORONIC statments.
Then please explain why these 'puffs of dust' were observed to have proceeded UP the building face on WTC 7 ? This seems to fly in the face of your 'preferred' explainations?...
I'm sure you can 'explain' this realistically within your 'piston theory'.
So tell us all about it. I await in great anticipation
BTW --- do you have a preferred 'time of collapse' 9... 12... 15 seconds, and ANY evidence to support your preferred time?
Oh, I know you will do acrobatics to avoid this question... but I thought I would just ask anyway...
QUOTE (Foxx+)
I find nothing particularly 'unusual' about structures falling through thin air outpacing the fall of structures which were still fully supported by intact structures and having to crush their way through uncompromised sections of steel framework.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 09:37 PM)
Then please explain why these 'puffs of dust' were observed to have proceeded UP the building face on WTC 7 ? This seems to fly in the face of your 'preferred' explainations?...
I'm sure you can 'explain' this realistically within your 'piston theory'.
So tell us all about it. I await in great anticipation
Are you THAT STUPID that somehow you figured my thoughts on WTC 1 and 2 would apply to WTC 7????
Even though WTC 1 & 2 are totally different construction than WTC 7 and the damage was caused by a totally different mechanism. You know WTC 1 & 2 had these high speed planes impact them, WTC 7 had flying debris.
Even NIST, while spending millions on it, is apparently having a hard time, given the limited evidence available, explaining how the known damage and fires led to a progressive failure that led to a global collapse.
But seeing how great a job they did on explaining the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, I still have high expectations for their eventual WTC 7 report.
As to the "puffs" progressing up the building face of WTC 7, I'm not familiar with those, but I would sincerely doubt they are squibs, absent other evidence.
Arthur
I'm sure you can 'explain' this realistically within your 'piston theory'.
So tell us all about it. I await in great anticipation
Are you THAT STUPID that somehow you figured my thoughts on WTC 1 and 2 would apply to WTC 7????
Even though WTC 1 & 2 are totally different construction than WTC 7 and the damage was caused by a totally different mechanism. You know WTC 1 & 2 had these high speed planes impact them, WTC 7 had flying debris.
Even NIST, while spending millions on it, is apparently having a hard time, given the limited evidence available, explaining how the known damage and fires led to a progressive failure that led to a global collapse.
But seeing how great a job they did on explaining the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, I still have high expectations for their eventual WTC 7 report.
As to the "puffs" progressing up the building face of WTC 7, I'm not familiar with those, but I would sincerely doubt they are squibs, absent other evidence.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 09:37 PM)
BTW --- do you have a preferred 'time of collapse' 9... 12... 15 seconds, and ANY evidence to support your preferred time?
Oh, I know you will do acrobatics to avoid this question... but I thought I would just ask anyway...
Do Acrobatics to avoid this question?
Why?
I have no PREFERRED TIME.
All I know is that it is some seconds longer than free fall speed simply because I can see material nearing the ground while the disintegration of the towers is as many as 40 floors behind. Since the dust cloud obscures the last seconds of the collapse, in my opinion, it is not possible to accurately time the full collapse.
What do I believe?
I BELIEVE that the collapse of both towers probably slowed greatly as they neared the ground levels, but we can't see this because its hidden by the dust cloud.
But hey, that's just what I THINK might have happened.
I don't expect that anyone to use what I BELIEVE as evidence for anything.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 01:39 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+)
I find nothing particularly 'unusual' about structures falling through thin air outpacing the fall of structures which were still fully supported by intact structures and having to crush their way through uncompromised sections of steel framework.
Arthur
Yeah... so ?
If a section of the towers was blown 250' horizontally from the 75th floor, it would no longer be subject to resistance from the underlying building... it was blown clear of this resistance... (or NOT ?)
If so, this particular debris would enter TRUE free-fall (NO resistance other than air)... (or NOT ?)
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to suggest that a 'controlled demolition' can fall at the speed of absolute free-fall.
As ONLY certain key support structures are compromised by explosives in a controlled demolition, there still must be the gravity-overloading of load-paths still available, and this takes time (even though it may only be milliseconds) it still provides resistance to slow down ANY collapse to well beyond actual free-fall times.
Here is a graphic example...
http://www.yeeguy.com/freefall/
This is what would be experienced by structures trying to fall through themselves. On the other hand, structures blown completely free from the progressive collapse (ALL resistance) would not suffer from these slow-downs and would fall at completely free-fall speeds.
The question is NOT whether the buildings fell at the speed of free-fall... we know they did not. Nevertheless the speed of fall of the building 'crushing through' the resistance below was FAR TOO FAST and TOO close to actual 'free-fall' rates to be considered realistic by any means.
Arthur
Yeah... so ?
If a section of the towers was blown 250' horizontally from the 75th floor, it would no longer be subject to resistance from the underlying building... it was blown clear of this resistance... (or NOT ?)
If so, this particular debris would enter TRUE free-fall (NO resistance other than air)... (or NOT ?)
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to suggest that a 'controlled demolition' can fall at the speed of absolute free-fall.
As ONLY certain key support structures are compromised by explosives in a controlled demolition, there still must be the gravity-overloading of load-paths still available, and this takes time (even though it may only be milliseconds) it still provides resistance to slow down ANY collapse to well beyond actual free-fall times.
Here is a graphic example...
http://www.yeeguy.com/freefall/
This is what would be experienced by structures trying to fall through themselves. On the other hand, structures blown completely free from the progressive collapse (ALL resistance) would not suffer from these slow-downs and would fall at completely free-fall speeds.
The question is NOT whether the buildings fell at the speed of free-fall... we know they did not. Nevertheless the speed of fall of the building 'crushing through' the resistance below was FAR TOO FAST and TOO close to actual 'free-fall' rates to be considered realistic by any means.
Well HERE we have the line Foxx has been peddling FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS (and that's after 4 years of STUDY)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 22 2006, 10:33 PM)
The buildings fell as if they faced very little to NO resistance above air resistance.
and he backs it up with this challenge
and he backs it up with this challenge
QUOTE (Foxx+)
none of 'you' have provided ANY evidence that these 'free-falling' sections were actually 'outpacing' the fall of yet-to-be impacted 'intact sections'.
But then in an AMAZING moment of LUCIDITY he writes:
But then in an AMAZING moment of LUCIDITY he writes:
QUOTE (Foxx+)
I find nothing particularly 'unusual' about structures falling through thin air outpacing the fall of structures which were still fully supported by intact structures and having to crush their way through uncompromised sections of steel framework
I think that's enough to get him drummed out of most ANY CT camp.
But his EGO forces him to defend this NEW POSITION, and so he now has morphed his long standing NEARLY AS FAST AS FREE FALL position into:
I think that's enough to get him drummed out of most ANY CT camp.
But his EGO forces him to defend this NEW POSITION, and so he now has morphed his long standing NEARLY AS FAST AS FREE FALL position into:
QUOTE (Foxx+)
The question is NOT whether the buildings fell at the speed of free-fall... we know they did not. Nevertheless the speed of fall of the building 'crushing through' the resistance below was FAR TOO FAST and TOO close to actual 'free-fall' rates to be considered realistic by any means.
Foxx, what a HOOT.
So I take it we should depend on a proven LIAR like FOXX to tell us what is a "REALISTIC" time for the fall?
Which is why we are being bombarded by pleas from Foxx to "Pick a time, any time"
Of course look how he SETS HIMSELF UP FOR THE ANSWER
Stop dodging the question with nonsense. How does a bomb progress in strength instead of dissipate after exploding? How does this bomb work in reverse...
A thermobaric blast, would expand as it traversed up the lower elevator shaft, on that side. The mechanical rooms are termination and upper access points, for those levators lines.
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
Foxx, what a HOOT.
So I take it we should depend on a proven LIAR like FOXX to tell us what is a "REALISTIC" time for the fall?
Which is why we are being bombarded by pleas from Foxx to "Pick a time, any time"
Of course look how he SETS HIMSELF UP FOR THE ANSWER
QUOTE (Foxx+)
As ONLY certain key support structures are compromised by explosives in a controlled demolition, there still must be the gravity-overloading of load-paths still available, and this takes time (even though it may only be milliseconds) it still provides resistance to slow down ANY collapse to well beyond actual free-fall times.
So lets see, 110 floors at 10 milliseconds per floor for delay due to CD, so 110 * 10 and Voila, add 1.1 seconds to the free fall time and SEE, I the great and powerful FOXX have PROVED it was CD.
Arthur
So lets see, 110 floors at 10 milliseconds per floor for delay due to CD, so 110 * 10 and Voila, add 1.1 seconds to the free fall time and SEE, I the great and powerful FOXX have PROVED it was CD.
Arthur
HEHEHE I like you RC. Cheers mate!
Makes me want to move "down under".
Makes me want to move "down under".
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 08:35 AM)
Stop dodging the question with nonsense. How does a bomb progress in strength instead of dissipate after exploding? How does this bomb work in reverse...
A thermobaric blast, would expand as it traversed up the lower elevator shaft, on that side. The mechanical rooms are termination and upper access points, for those levators lines.
QUOTE
by arthur
So I take it we should depend on a proven LIAR like FOXX to tell us what is a "REALISTIC" time for the fall?
So I take it we should depend on a proven LIAR like FOXX to tell us what is a "REALISTIC" time for the fall?
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 11:09 PM)
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
How about office material piled up by the remains of a FRIGGIN PLANE you MORON.
Arthur
How about office material piled up by the remains of a FRIGGIN PLANE you MORON.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 03:12 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 11:09 PM)
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
How about office material piled up by the remains of a FRIGGIN PLANE you MORON.
Arthur
Hmmmm... didn't read any reports of those conditions by survivors who were able to get through the debris...
Got any references to provide support to that statement?
You can always tell when you have them cornered, because then they resort to name-calling (as if that adds support to their position).
hasta manyana... cabelloros
How about office material piled up by the remains of a FRIGGIN PLANE you MORON.
Arthur
Hmmmm... didn't read any reports of those conditions by survivors who were able to get through the debris...
Got any references to provide support to that statement?
You can always tell when you have them cornered, because then they resort to name-calling (as if that adds support to their position).
hasta manyana... cabelloros
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 11:25 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 03:12 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 11:09 PM)
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
How about office material piled up by the remains of a FRIGGIN PLANE you MORON.
Arthur
Hmmmm... didn't read any reports of those conditions by survivors who were able to get through the debris...
Got any references to provide support to that statement?
The ONLY survivors to make it out via the stairways from the impact floors or above were all in WTC 2. Because the plane hit more off center and on the side that was in line with the SHORT side of the core, one of the 3 stairways was partially passable.
The woman standing by the hole on the 94th floor was in WTC 1. The plane hit almost dead center and in line with the LONG side of the core, apparently blocking ALL stairways with debris, fire or both. I presume it was both or you would expect that everyone still alive would be working frantically to remove the debris. The fact that we see people by the outside leads me to believe removing debris from the stairways was not an option. Remember, it had to be the deteriorating conditions in the upper floors combined with a lack of escape route to lead people to make suicide leaps.
Arthur
How the mighty have fallen! Are you reduced to this? Is this the sum total of your "PHYSICS" counter-argument?
Your position must be even more untenable than ever? What's the matter?....too much TRUTH in what I have just accused you of IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REAL AND GENUINE CONSISTENT PHYSICS TO SUPPORT YOUR SCURRILOUS ACTIVITIES IN A SCIENCE FORUM?
Too bad, "FOXX". You coalda bin a contender for the most wifully miscreant and corrupt 'intelligence' I have encountered in a long time! Cheers!
RC
Is this really RC?
He's starting to sound more & more like a Schneiby clone.
Whatever happened to that 'rational' (and I use the term 'rational' loosely) 'Reality check' who just 'popped-in' on his way to making lunch...
(Disinterested & 'objective' as he tried to appear)
Unlike you "FOXX", I am capable of learning from people. Unfortunately for you, your example is way less worthy than Schneibster's. You have lied and misled where he has presented PHYSICS you have yet to refute with PHYSICS. Even the videos and other images and info being made available now makes you an even bigger liar than even Schneibster said you were (and proved it).
So if you say I sound like Schneibster, it is probably because one can only call you out on your lies using pretty much the same expressions that are available to us in the English language. LIAR. There. See? I sound JUST like Schneibster or ANYONE ELSE that calls you a liar because you have given them ample cause to do so.
Perhaps if you stopped lying and twisting you might get a more favourable response from people who are here FOR THE SCIENCE.......and not for YOUR POLITICS, SCAMS and LIES.
If I sound less 'charitable' towards you than earlier, it is because there comes a time when enough BULLSH*T is ENOUGH.
Cough up the physics rebuttal or take your deserts, "FOXX". You would try the patience of a saint, mate. And all here are only human. Hence the 'exasperated' tone as all here wearily expose your agenda and your lies one after the other.
PS: Thanks Schneibster. If it annoys "FOXX", then it must be the truth, heh. What else would annoy a "FOXX" so much? hehehe.
RC.
.
How about office material piled up by the remains of a FRIGGIN PLANE you MORON.
Arthur
Hmmmm... didn't read any reports of those conditions by survivors who were able to get through the debris...
Got any references to provide support to that statement?
The ONLY survivors to make it out via the stairways from the impact floors or above were all in WTC 2. Because the plane hit more off center and on the side that was in line with the SHORT side of the core, one of the 3 stairways was partially passable.
The woman standing by the hole on the 94th floor was in WTC 1. The plane hit almost dead center and in line with the LONG side of the core, apparently blocking ALL stairways with debris, fire or both. I presume it was both or you would expect that everyone still alive would be working frantically to remove the debris. The fact that we see people by the outside leads me to believe removing debris from the stairways was not an option. Remember, it had to be the deteriorating conditions in the upper floors combined with a lack of escape route to lead people to make suicide leaps.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 12:59 AM)
QUOTE
How the mighty have fallen! Are you reduced to this? Is this the sum total of your "PHYSICS" counter-argument?
Your position must be even more untenable than ever? What's the matter?....too much TRUTH in what I have just accused you of IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REAL AND GENUINE CONSISTENT PHYSICS TO SUPPORT YOUR SCURRILOUS ACTIVITIES IN A SCIENCE FORUM?
Too bad, "FOXX". You coalda bin a contender for the most wifully miscreant and corrupt 'intelligence' I have encountered in a long time! Cheers!
RC
Is this really RC?
He's starting to sound more & more like a Schneiby clone.
Whatever happened to that 'rational' (and I use the term 'rational' loosely) 'Reality check' who just 'popped-in' on his way to making lunch...
(Disinterested & 'objective' as he tried to appear)
Unlike you "FOXX", I am capable of learning from people. Unfortunately for you, your example is way less worthy than Schneibster's. You have lied and misled where he has presented PHYSICS you have yet to refute with PHYSICS. Even the videos and other images and info being made available now makes you an even bigger liar than even Schneibster said you were (and proved it).
So if you say I sound like Schneibster, it is probably because one can only call you out on your lies using pretty much the same expressions that are available to us in the English language. LIAR. There. See? I sound JUST like Schneibster or ANYONE ELSE that calls you a liar because you have given them ample cause to do so.
Perhaps if you stopped lying and twisting you might get a more favourable response from people who are here FOR THE SCIENCE.......and not for YOUR POLITICS, SCAMS and LIES.
If I sound less 'charitable' towards you than earlier, it is because there comes a time when enough BULLSH*T is ENOUGH.
Cough up the physics rebuttal or take your deserts, "FOXX". You would try the patience of a saint, mate. And all here are only human. Hence the 'exasperated' tone as all here wearily expose your agenda and your lies one after the other.
PS: Thanks Schneibster. If it annoys "FOXX", then it must be the truth, heh. What else would annoy a "FOXX" so much? hehehe.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 03:25 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 03:12 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 11:09 PM)
Amazing story !!! What was burning in the core ? Gyprock?... Steel?...
How about office material piled up by the remains of a FRIGGIN PLANE you MORON.
Arthur
Hmmmm... didn't read any reports of those conditions by survivors who were able to get through the debris...
Got any references to provide support to that statement?
You can always tell when you have them cornered, because then they resort to name-calling (as if that adds support to their position).
hasta manyana... cabelloros
It is now my sad duty to point to the "FOXX" and accuse with a sense of inevitability: HYPOCRITE! as well as a "FOXX".
"FOXX", you attempt to disparage me as "....starting to sound like Schneibster"...while YOU yourself start sounding like Farter Plecticus!
Man, I would rather be in MY shoes than YOURS, hehehe. If I ever start sounding like Farter, then I know that the world is coming to an end! You can have your 'farterisms', "FOXX"; I'll settle for Schneibsterisms ANY DAY...at least he has what it takes in the SCIENCE and INTEGRITY depts.
I hope you and farter are happy in your 'political matching'. Perhaps he can start mimicking YOU...that would be easy...just lie, and present no physics...oh wait........
RC.
.
Stop dodging the question with nonsense. How does a bomb progress in strength instead of dissipate after exploding? How does this bomb work in reverse...
A thermobaric blast, would expand as it traversed up the lower elevator shaft, on that side. The mechanical rooms are termination and upper access points, for those levators lines.
Everything I read about thermobaric weapons says it's to burn the air out of places like caves and create pressure. Not to take down buildings. Do you have any evidence a thermobaric weapon can be used to blow the kind of Steel used in the WTC?
Also, wheres the fireball?
Also, wheres the fireball?
Here's how your average fuel-air bomb works: A warhead containing a canister of aerosol liquid such as ethylene oxide or an explosive powder is dropped on a target. "A small initial explosive charge bursts this canister at a predetermined height, allowing the contents to form a concentrated explosive vapor cloud. This cloud is then ignited by a second, larger charge, to generate an intense fireball and blast overpressure. . . . Even if the FAE (fuel-air explosive) fails to detonate completely, it will generate a widespread burning
effect," says Jane's. "The temperature can be as high as 3,000 degrees Celsius--more than twice that generated by a conventional explosive. The blast wave can travel at approximately 10,000 feet per second."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...01/005abyvw.asp
So if that's mist from the thermobaric weapon it should have blown up in an "intense fireball". I don't see one, do you?
You're grabing for straws again.
Wheres the fireball?
How about office material piled up by the remains of a FRIGGIN PLANE you MORON.
Arthur
Hmmmm... didn't read any reports of those conditions by survivors who were able to get through the debris...
Got any references to provide support to that statement?
You can always tell when you have them cornered, because then they resort to name-calling (as if that adds support to their position).
hasta manyana... cabelloros
It is now my sad duty to point to the "FOXX" and accuse with a sense of inevitability: HYPOCRITE! as well as a "FOXX".
"FOXX", you attempt to disparage me as "....starting to sound like Schneibster"...while YOU yourself start sounding like Farter Plecticus!
Man, I would rather be in MY shoes than YOURS, hehehe. If I ever start sounding like Farter, then I know that the world is coming to an end! You can have your 'farterisms', "FOXX"; I'll settle for Schneibsterisms ANY DAY...at least he has what it takes in the SCIENCE and INTEGRITY depts.
I hope you and farter are happy in your 'political matching'. Perhaps he can start mimicking YOU...that would be easy...just lie, and present no physics...oh wait........
RC.
.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 25 2006, 03:04 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 08:35 AM)
Stop dodging the question with nonsense. How does a bomb progress in strength instead of dissipate after exploding? How does this bomb work in reverse...
A thermobaric blast, would expand as it traversed up the lower elevator shaft, on that side. The mechanical rooms are termination and upper access points, for those levators lines.
Everything I read about thermobaric weapons says it's to burn the air out of places like caves and create pressure. Not to take down buildings. Do you have any evidence a thermobaric weapon can be used to blow the kind of Steel used in the WTC?
QUOTE
The weapons create a huge pressure wave which effectively sucks the air out of the lungs of anyone unfortunate enough to be within range
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1854371.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1854371.stm
Also, wheres the fireball?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The weapons create a huge pressure wave which effectively sucks the air out of the lungs of anyone unfortunate enough to be within range http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1854371.stm |
Also, wheres the fireball?
Here's how your average fuel-air bomb works: A warhead containing a canister of aerosol liquid such as ethylene oxide or an explosive powder is dropped on a target. "A small initial explosive charge bursts this canister at a predetermined height, allowing the contents to form a concentrated explosive vapor cloud. This cloud is then ignited by a second, larger charge, to generate an intense fireball and blast overpressure. . . . Even if the FAE (fuel-air explosive) fails to detonate completely, it will generate a widespread burning
effect," says Jane's. "The temperature can be as high as 3,000 degrees Celsius--more than twice that generated by a conventional explosive. The blast wave can travel at approximately 10,000 feet per second."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...01/005abyvw.asp
So if that's mist from the thermobaric weapon it should have blown up in an "intense fireball". I don't see one, do you?
QUOTE
The thermobaric bomb is just about the most vicious weapon you can imagine -- igniting the air, sucking the oxygen out of an enclosed area, and creating a massive pressure wave crushing anything unfortunate enough to have lived through the conflagration.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000747.html
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000747.html
You're grabing for straws again.
Wheres the fireball?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 25 2006, 02:55 AM)
HEHEHE I like you RC. Cheers mate!
Makes me want to move "down under".
Hi Common Sense!
We have our fair share of BULLSH*TTERS down under, mate; but we see it as an 'art' rather than a 'criminal occupation' (as some above the 49th parallel apparently seem to have taken it up as, hehehe).
And we tolerate all sorts of BSers; BUT we draw the line at CRIMINALLY INCOMPETENT (and/or just plain CRIMINAL) BSers. Such types don't last long down here, as we seem to have evolved a keen BS detection sense...at which point the next sound we here from the 'failed' BSer is "splash" as he is ceremoniously dunked to 'officially declare to all and sundry' the criminal incompetence of the 'exposed' BSer . I wonder if Canada will start up a similar tradition of short shrift 'declaration' of FOXX's criminally incompetent BSer status? I'd pay good money to watch the fun and hear the 'splash'.
I bet he's so paranoid that, when I say 'fun' and 'splash', FOXX immediately thinks 'spooks' and 'suicides' and 'car brakes' and (insert paranoid fear here), hehehe.
Cheers yourself, CS!
RC.
.
Makes me want to move "down under".
Hi Common Sense!
We have our fair share of BULLSH*TTERS down under, mate; but we see it as an 'art' rather than a 'criminal occupation' (as some above the 49th parallel apparently seem to have taken it up as, hehehe).
And we tolerate all sorts of BSers; BUT we draw the line at CRIMINALLY INCOMPETENT (and/or just plain CRIMINAL) BSers. Such types don't last long down here, as we seem to have evolved a keen BS detection sense...at which point the next sound we here from the 'failed' BSer is "splash" as he is ceremoniously dunked to 'officially declare to all and sundry' the criminal incompetence of the 'exposed' BSer . I wonder if Canada will start up a similar tradition of short shrift 'declaration' of FOXX's criminally incompetent BSer status? I'd pay good money to watch the fun and hear the 'splash'.
I bet he's so paranoid that, when I say 'fun' and 'splash', FOXX immediately thinks 'spooks' and 'suicides' and 'car brakes' and (insert paranoid fear here), hehehe.
Cheers yourself, CS!
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 01:48 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 24 2006, 09:37 PM)
Then please explain why these 'puffs of dust' were observed to have proceeded UP the building face on WTC 7 ? This seems to fly in the face of your 'preferred' explainations?...
I'm sure you can 'explain' this realistically within your 'piston theory'.
So tell us all about it. I await in great anticipation
Are you THAT STUPID that somehow you figured my thoughts on WTC 1 and 2 would apply to WTC 7????
Even though WTC 1 & 2 are totally different construction than WTC 7 and the damage was caused by a totally different mechanism. You know WTC 1 & 2 had these high speed planes impact them, WTC 7 had flying debris.
Even NIST, while spending millions on it, is apparently having a hard time, given the limited evidence available, explaining how the known damage and fires led to a progressive failure that led to a global collapse.
But seeing how great a job they did on explaining the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, I still have high expectations for their eventual WTC 7 report.
As to the "puffs" progressing up the building face of WTC 7, I'm not familiar with those, but I would sincerely doubt they are squibs, absent other evidence.
Arthur
(Emphasis mine)
I'm glad to have somebody like Foxx on my side. Making errors is quite human, and the reason why we should be seeking an interdisciplinary community of scholars to study the collapses is partly to weed out such errors.
Science is self-correcting, and scientists have no good excuse for maintianing untenable positions.* Foxx not being a pope on a scientific forum is a credit to him, even if he is not trumpeting a change in viewpoint.
Your statement, on the other hand, which I have bolded, shows an unfortunate tendency to maintain and foster a pseudo-reality.
Conclusion: Foxx would make a far better scientist than you could ever hope to be.
* The sociology and economics of science are, unfortunately, corrupting influences which do, indeed, mean that the reality is far from the ideal. But the ideal is at least understood.
I'm sure you can 'explain' this realistically within your 'piston theory'.
So tell us all about it. I await in great anticipation
Are you THAT STUPID that somehow you figured my thoughts on WTC 1 and 2 would apply to WTC 7????
Even though WTC 1 & 2 are totally different construction than WTC 7 and the damage was caused by a totally different mechanism. You know WTC 1 & 2 had these high speed planes impact them, WTC 7 had flying debris.
Even NIST, while spending millions on it, is apparently having a hard time, given the limited evidence available, explaining how the known damage and fires led to a progressive failure that led to a global collapse.
But seeing how great a job they did on explaining the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, I still have high expectations for their eventual WTC 7 report.
As to the "puffs" progressing up the building face of WTC 7, I'm not familiar with those, but I would sincerely doubt they are squibs, absent other evidence.
Arthur
(Emphasis mine)
I'm glad to have somebody like Foxx on my side. Making errors is quite human, and the reason why we should be seeking an interdisciplinary community of scholars to study the collapses is partly to weed out such errors.
Science is self-correcting, and scientists have no good excuse for maintianing untenable positions.* Foxx not being a pope on a scientific forum is a credit to him, even if he is not trumpeting a change in viewpoint.
Your statement, on the other hand, which I have bolded, shows an unfortunate tendency to maintain and foster a pseudo-reality.
Conclusion: Foxx would make a far better scientist than you could ever hope to be.
* The sociology and economics of science are, unfortunately, corrupting influences which do, indeed, mean that the reality is far from the ideal. But the ideal is at least understood.
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 01:44 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 01:48 AM)
...you figured my thoughts on WTC 1 and 2 would apply to WTC 7????
Even though WTC 1 & 2 are totally different construction than WTC 7 and the damage was caused by a totally different mechanism. You know WTC 1 & 2 had these high speed planes impact them, WTC 7 had flying debris.
Even NIST, while spending millions on it, is apparently having a hard time, given the limited evidence available, explaining how the known damage and fires led to a progressive failure that led to a global collapse.
But seeing how great a job they did on explaining the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, I still have high expectations for their eventual WTC 7 report.
Arthur
(Emphasis mine)
I'm glad to have somebody like Foxx on my side. Making errors is quite human
Foxx not being a pope on a scientific forum is a credit to him, even if he is not trumpeting a change in viewpoint.
Your statement, on the other hand, which I have bolded, shows an unfortunate tendency to maintain and foster a pseudo-reality.
(Emphasis mine)
Stop dodging the question with nonsense. How does a bomb progress in strength instead of dissipate after exploding? How does this bomb work in reverse...
A thermobaric blast, would expand as it traversed up the lower elevator shaft, on that side. The mechanical rooms are termination and upper access points, for those levators lines.
Thermobaric weaponry basics
Detonation of a high explosive device produces a rapid, localised energy release. The formation of a blast wave, thermal radiation, break-up of the munition casing and acceleration of the fragments dissipate this energy. In the case of conventional blast/fragmentation warheads, a large part of the energy is taken up by the break-up of the casing and acceleration of the fragments. Thermobaric weaponry usually has very thin casing and most of the energy ends up as fireball and blast/shock wave. The energy release in explosions occurs over microseconds and is governed by the detonation velocity of the explosive. Detonation velocities of thermobaric explosives (3–4 km/s) are similar to those of mining blast explosives, and considerably lower than those of military high explosives (about 8 km/s).
Explosives used in thermobaric weapons are generally oxygen-deficient; additional oxygen from the air is required to achieve complete combustion of the charge. Only part of the energy is released during the initial detonation phase, which generates high levels of fuel-rich products that undergo "after-burning" when mixed with the shock-heated air. The energy released through after-burning and combustion lengthens the duration of blast overpressure and increases the fireball. In conventional blast/fragmentation TNT-based munitions, no significant after-burn occurs. Fragments inhibit the mixing of detonation gases with air and the rapid expansion of the detonation has a cooling effect before mixing with atmospheric oxygen occurs.
All explosions form a blast wave, which travels faster than the speed of sound. Box 1 shows typical pressure histories for a conventional high explosive and a thermobaric explosive observed as the expanding shock front moves outwards from the centre of explosion. A shock front originates at the interface between detonation products and the surrounding atmosphere. There is a dramatic increase in pressure across the shock front (time t1 on the graph), which has a crushing effect on objects in addition to an instantaneous lateral force. As can be seen in Box 1, the peak overpressure is much higher for the high explosive detonation (P2) than for the thermobaric detonation (P1), but this pressure drops much more rapidly. The positive phase is followed by a negative phase below atmospheric pressure. The negative phase results in a reversed-blast wind and causes human targets to be bodily lifted and thrown. This phase can be longer in a thermobaric detonation than a high explosive detonation. Thus, despite the lower initial blast pressure, the total impulse (represented graphically in Box 1 by the area under the curve) can be comparable or even higher for thermobaric explosives compared with high explosives. Target effects are dependent on peak blast overpressure as well as on the duration (impulse) of the event. Animal research indicates that tolerance to blast overpressure progressively decreases with increase in pulse duration.6
http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocent..._4_1_03-06.html
Even though WTC 1 & 2 are totally different construction than WTC 7 and the damage was caused by a totally different mechanism. You know WTC 1 & 2 had these high speed planes impact them, WTC 7 had flying debris.
Even NIST, while spending millions on it, is apparently having a hard time, given the limited evidence available, explaining how the known damage and fires led to a progressive failure that led to a global collapse.
But seeing how great a job they did on explaining the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, I still have high expectations for their eventual WTC 7 report.
Arthur
(Emphasis mine)
I'm glad to have somebody like Foxx on my side. Making errors is quite human
Foxx not being a pope on a scientific forum is a credit to him, even if he is not trumpeting a change in viewpoint.
Your statement, on the other hand, which I have bolded, shows an unfortunate tendency to maintain and foster a pseudo-reality.
(Emphasis mine)
QUOTE (Metamars Nov 2+ 2005)
Presumably, he is alluding to the NIST report. However, while I haven't read it, my understanding is that the NIST report ...
One's LAZY, the other a LIAR.
Nice pair.
I'm ALSO glad Foxx is on your side.
Arthur
One's LAZY, the other a LIAR.
Nice pair.
I'm ALSO glad Foxx is on your side.
Arthur
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 24 2006, 07:04 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 08:35 AM)
Stop dodging the question with nonsense. How does a bomb progress in strength instead of dissipate after exploding? How does this bomb work in reverse...
A thermobaric blast, would expand as it traversed up the lower elevator shaft, on that side. The mechanical rooms are termination and upper access points, for those levators lines.
Thermobaric weaponry basics
Detonation of a high explosive device produces a rapid, localised energy release. The formation of a blast wave, thermal radiation, break-up of the munition casing and acceleration of the fragments dissipate this energy. In the case of conventional blast/fragmentation warheads, a large part of the energy is taken up by the break-up of the casing and acceleration of the fragments. Thermobaric weaponry usually has very thin casing and most of the energy ends up as fireball and blast/shock wave. The energy release in explosions occurs over microseconds and is governed by the detonation velocity of the explosive. Detonation velocities of thermobaric explosives (3–4 km/s) are similar to those of mining blast explosives, and considerably lower than those of military high explosives (about 8 km/s).
Explosives used in thermobaric weapons are generally oxygen-deficient; additional oxygen from the air is required to achieve complete combustion of the charge. Only part of the energy is released during the initial detonation phase, which generates high levels of fuel-rich products that undergo "after-burning" when mixed with the shock-heated air. The energy released through after-burning and combustion lengthens the duration of blast overpressure and increases the fireball. In conventional blast/fragmentation TNT-based munitions, no significant after-burn occurs. Fragments inhibit the mixing of detonation gases with air and the rapid expansion of the detonation has a cooling effect before mixing with atmospheric oxygen occurs.
All explosions form a blast wave, which travels faster than the speed of sound. Box 1 shows typical pressure histories for a conventional high explosive and a thermobaric explosive observed as the expanding shock front moves outwards from the centre of explosion. A shock front originates at the interface between detonation products and the surrounding atmosphere. There is a dramatic increase in pressure across the shock front (time t1 on the graph), which has a crushing effect on objects in addition to an instantaneous lateral force. As can be seen in Box 1, the peak overpressure is much higher for the high explosive detonation (P2) than for the thermobaric detonation (P1), but this pressure drops much more rapidly. The positive phase is followed by a negative phase below atmospheric pressure. The negative phase results in a reversed-blast wind and causes human targets to be bodily lifted and thrown. This phase can be longer in a thermobaric detonation than a high explosive detonation. Thus, despite the lower initial blast pressure, the total impulse (represented graphically in Box 1 by the area under the curve) can be comparable or even higher for thermobaric explosives compared with high explosives. Target effects are dependent on peak blast overpressure as well as on the duration (impulse) of the event. Animal research indicates that tolerance to blast overpressure progressively decreases with increase in pulse duration.6
http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocent..._4_1_03-06.html
It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: people who don't believe the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, not orchestrated by terrorists within our own government are SNOROM.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 02:51 AM)
Well HERE we have the line Foxx has been peddling FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS (and that's after 4 years of STUDY)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 22 2006, 10:33 PM)
The buildings fell as if they faced very little to NO resistance above air resistance.
and he backs it up with this challenge
and he backs it up with this challenge
QUOTE (Foxx+)
none of 'you' have provided ANY evidence that these 'free-falling' sections were actually 'outpacing' the fall of yet-to-be impacted 'intact sections'.
But then in an AMAZING moment of LUCIDITY he writes:
But then in an AMAZING moment of LUCIDITY he writes:
QUOTE (Foxx+)
I find nothing particularly 'unusual' about structures falling through thin air outpacing the fall of structures which were still fully supported by intact structures and having to crush their way through uncompromised sections of steel framework
I think that's enough to get him drummed out of most ANY CT camp.
But his EGO forces him to defend this NEW POSITION, and so he now has morphed his long standing NEARLY AS FAST AS FREE FALL position into:
I think that's enough to get him drummed out of most ANY CT camp.
But his EGO forces him to defend this NEW POSITION, and so he now has morphed his long standing NEARLY AS FAST AS FREE FALL position into:
QUOTE (Foxx+)
The question is NOT whether the buildings fell at the speed of free-fall... we know they did not. Nevertheless the speed of fall of the building 'crushing through' the resistance below was FAR TOO FAST and TOO close to actual 'free-fall' rates to be considered realistic by any means.
Foxx, what a HOOT.
So I take it we should depend on a proven LIAR like FOXX to tell us what is a "REALISTIC" time for the fall?
Which is why we are being bombarded by pleas from Foxx to "Pick a time, any time"
Of course look how he SETS HIMSELF UP FOR THE ANSWER
Foxx, what a HOOT.
So I take it we should depend on a proven LIAR like FOXX to tell us what is a "REALISTIC" time for the fall?
Which is why we are being bombarded by pleas from Foxx to "Pick a time, any time"
Of course look how he SETS HIMSELF UP FOR THE ANSWER
QUOTE (Foxx+)
As ONLY certain key support structures are compromised by explosives in a controlled demolition, there still must be the gravity-overloading of load-paths still available, and this takes time (even though it may only be milliseconds) it still provides resistance to slow down ANY collapse to well beyond actual free-fall times.
So lets see, 110 floors at 10 milliseconds per floor for delay due to CD, so 110 * 10 and Voila, add 1.1 seconds to the free fall time and SEE, I the great and powerful FOXX have PROVED it was CD.
Arthur
Priceless!
Arthur, what can I say......
I'm humbled.
You have captured the true essence of Foxx in a single post.
The boy can squirm, can't he?
Ronald DiFrancesco (South Tower)
As he left the building, he saw a fireball rolling toward him. He put his arms in front of his face.
He woke up three days later at St. Vincent's hospital. His arms were burned. Some bones were broken. His lungs were singed. But he was alive — the last person out of the south tower.
Felipe David (North Tower)
But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"
“That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot."
David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
Jose Sanchez (North Tower)
“It sounded like a bomb and the lights went on and off. We started to walk to the exit and a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator. The hot air from the ball of fire dropped Chino to the floor and my hair got burned,” said Sanchez . “I said ‘Chino, let’s go we gotta get out of here.’ But Chino was wounded and told me he needed help. I remember him saying that the hot air came with such force that it broke his leg.
Yasana Mutuanot (North Tower)
Mutuanot was in the lobby of Tower One when she heard the first explosion. Thinking it was a bomb like the terrorist attack in 1993, she turned to run, looking over her shoulder as flames leaped from a freight elevator shaft cooking her back and legs and right cheek.
"It was a fireball with sand and heat, like a hurricane of fire," she said.
While the city continued the grisly process of identifying the dead Monday, burn patients in a New York hospital recalled fireballs bursting from elevator shafts at the World Trade Center, setting human torches.
"I saw a lot of people with fire on their back and in their hair," said Yasana Mutuanot from her bed in the burn ward at New York Weill Cornell Medical Center, where she is being treated for burns over half of her body. "It was like a movie of Vietnam, like napalm or something. ... There was a man who lost his shirt and pants. The skin on his face was all bubbled and on his body, too. You could see the skin peeling off."
The lobby windows shattered as she stumbled out of the building and fell. She could not regain her footing. Her husband, who had not yet entered the building, arrived at her side.
Will Jimeno
Five of us grabbed our air packs and helmets and other gear and headed out. We got on the elevator and went down to the Mall Level and made our way across toward Tower Two. As we turned into a connecting corridor leading to Tower One, we suddenly heard a terrible rumbling noise. I looked out onto the street and saw a fireball the size of my house hit the pavement.
When the rescue team reached an area directly in front of Tower Two, Antonio said he'd take over the equipment cart Will had pushed from Building 5. ... The team moved ahead. Scant minutes passed. Suddenly the hallway began to shudder as a terrible deafening roar swept over them. That's when Will saw the giant fireball explode in the street.
Lauren Manning (North Tower)
On 9/11, Lauren Manning was on her way to work as a senior executive at Cantor Fitzgerald when she was engulfed by a fireball in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center. Burned over most of her body, she was given little chance to live. She spent months in a drug-induced coma before pulling through faster than even optimists had thought possible.
Chief Anthony Whitaker (North Tower)
I turned in that direction and saw an enormous fireball exploding out of the concourse entrance to building 1, the North Tower. It appeared to be pushing people around it and engulfing them; without hesitating, I ran down the corridor to escape it and eventually dove for cover in a small hallway between the entrances to building 1 and 2.
So lets see, 110 floors at 10 milliseconds per floor for delay due to CD, so 110 * 10 and Voila, add 1.1 seconds to the free fall time and SEE, I the great and powerful FOXX have PROVED it was CD.
Arthur
Priceless!
Arthur, what can I say......
I'm humbled.
You have captured the true essence of Foxx in a single post.
The boy can squirm, can't he?
QUOTE
by Schneiby-dooby-doo
You're grabing for straws again.
Wheres the fireball?
You're grabing for straws again.
Wheres the fireball?
Ronald DiFrancesco (South Tower)
As he left the building, he saw a fireball rolling toward him. He put his arms in front of his face.
He woke up three days later at St. Vincent's hospital. His arms were burned. Some bones were broken. His lungs were singed. But he was alive — the last person out of the south tower.
Felipe David (North Tower)
But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"
“That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot."
David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
Jose Sanchez (North Tower)
“It sounded like a bomb and the lights went on and off. We started to walk to the exit and a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator. The hot air from the ball of fire dropped Chino to the floor and my hair got burned,” said Sanchez . “I said ‘Chino, let’s go we gotta get out of here.’ But Chino was wounded and told me he needed help. I remember him saying that the hot air came with such force that it broke his leg.
Yasana Mutuanot (North Tower)
Mutuanot was in the lobby of Tower One when she heard the first explosion. Thinking it was a bomb like the terrorist attack in 1993, she turned to run, looking over her shoulder as flames leaped from a freight elevator shaft cooking her back and legs and right cheek.
"It was a fireball with sand and heat, like a hurricane of fire," she said.
While the city continued the grisly process of identifying the dead Monday, burn patients in a New York hospital recalled fireballs bursting from elevator shafts at the World Trade Center, setting human torches.
"I saw a lot of people with fire on their back and in their hair," said Yasana Mutuanot from her bed in the burn ward at New York Weill Cornell Medical Center, where she is being treated for burns over half of her body. "It was like a movie of Vietnam, like napalm or something. ... There was a man who lost his shirt and pants. The skin on his face was all bubbled and on his body, too. You could see the skin peeling off."
The lobby windows shattered as she stumbled out of the building and fell. She could not regain her footing. Her husband, who had not yet entered the building, arrived at her side.
Will Jimeno
Five of us grabbed our air packs and helmets and other gear and headed out. We got on the elevator and went down to the Mall Level and made our way across toward Tower Two. As we turned into a connecting corridor leading to Tower One, we suddenly heard a terrible rumbling noise. I looked out onto the street and saw a fireball the size of my house hit the pavement.
When the rescue team reached an area directly in front of Tower Two, Antonio said he'd take over the equipment cart Will had pushed from Building 5. ... The team moved ahead. Scant minutes passed. Suddenly the hallway began to shudder as a terrible deafening roar swept over them. That's when Will saw the giant fireball explode in the street.
Lauren Manning (North Tower)
On 9/11, Lauren Manning was on her way to work as a senior executive at Cantor Fitzgerald when she was engulfed by a fireball in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center. Burned over most of her body, she was given little chance to live. She spent months in a drug-induced coma before pulling through faster than even optimists had thought possible.
Chief Anthony Whitaker (North Tower)
I turned in that direction and saw an enormous fireball exploding out of the concourse entrance to building 1, the North Tower. It appeared to be pushing people around it and engulfing them; without hesitating, I ran down the corridor to escape it and eventually dove for cover in a small hallway between the entrances to building 1 and 2.
A visit to the henhouse by Mr Foxx sure gets those hens a cackling.
Humourous, but academic really when -
"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."
For those having problems with this Reality, Check out -
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/index.html
It is getting quite hilarious with RC etc going all Mr Rumsfeldish -
Rumsfeld to the CFR - extract -
Rumsfeld’s speech alerted his audience to the threats facing America in the new century.
He opined: “We meet today in the 6th year in what promises to be a long struggle against an enemy that in many ways is unlike any our country has ever faced. And, in this war, some of the most critical battles may not be in the mountains in Afghanistan or in the streets of Iraq, but in newsrooms—in places like New York, London, Cairo, and elsewhere.”
“New York”?
“Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today’s media age, but for the most part our country has not”. --
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...206Rumsfeld.htm
When "the enemy" is truth itself you can see the poor chaps problem eh. A few here are burdened with the same problem.
Did I mention it was already possible to know ..... :-)
Humourous, but academic really when -
"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."
For those having problems with this Reality, Check out -
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/index.html
It is getting quite hilarious with RC etc going all Mr Rumsfeldish -
Rumsfeld to the CFR - extract -
Rumsfeld’s speech alerted his audience to the threats facing America in the new century.
He opined: “We meet today in the 6th year in what promises to be a long struggle against an enemy that in many ways is unlike any our country has ever faced. And, in this war, some of the most critical battles may not be in the mountains in Afghanistan or in the streets of Iraq, but in newsrooms—in places like New York, London, Cairo, and elsewhere.”
“New York”?
“Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today’s media age, but for the most part our country has not”. --
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...206Rumsfeld.htm
When "the enemy" is truth itself you can see the poor chaps problem eh. A few here are burdened with the same problem.
Did I mention it was already possible to know ..... :-)
As the diagram posted by ReasonWhy shows:
A High Explosive Blast creates an almost instantaneous supersonic shock wave.
The entire time for the initial pressure pulse T1 to T2, is in the order of 6 milliseconds or less. Its rate of travel outward is on the order of 8 kps.
The time to the pressure peak P1 is a small fraction of the entire time T1 to T2 and is, in the order of a few microseconds. Inside a building like the WTC towers, set near the center to take out the core columns, the IMMENSE overpressure from a large HE detonation would blow out ALL THE WINDOWS on the floor as the instantaneous increase in the pressure per sq inch on the windows would FAR exceed their design ability. This would occur within about 4 milliseconds of the explosion going off.
After T2 there is a negative pressure which lasts for roughly twice as long as the original pressure pulse but is lower in magnitude.
In any case, the whole blast is over in less than 16 ms and has included a supersonic high pressure blast front followed by a slower reversed blast-wind.
Typical broadcast quality video equipment shoots at 60 frames per second (non-interlaced) but 30 frames per second is also common and is displayed interlaced at 60 frames per second.
Assuming the faster 60 fps rate, a frame is shot every 16.6 milliseconds and so there is no way one would see a frame to frame INCREASE in blast effects from a High Explosive. It would ALL be over in the time it takes to take just ONE frame. In addition, the material leaving the building would be traveling at near 8 kps, and so would travel approx 400 ft in the span of one frame (twice the width of the towers) and this is clearly NOT what we see.
Thus the most frequently pointed to air/debris blast that is identified as a "squib", which we clearly see growing over multiple frames and which is not moving anywhere near the speed of a High explosive blast front, is obviously the result of a much slower physical process than would be exhibited by High Explosives.
Arthur
A High Explosive Blast creates an almost instantaneous supersonic shock wave.
The entire time for the initial pressure pulse T1 to T2, is in the order of 6 milliseconds or less. Its rate of travel outward is on the order of 8 kps.
The time to the pressure peak P1 is a small fraction of the entire time T1 to T2 and is, in the order of a few microseconds. Inside a building like the WTC towers, set near the center to take out the core columns, the IMMENSE overpressure from a large HE detonation would blow out ALL THE WINDOWS on the floor as the instantaneous increase in the pressure per sq inch on the windows would FAR exceed their design ability. This would occur within about 4 milliseconds of the explosion going off.
After T2 there is a negative pressure which lasts for roughly twice as long as the original pressure pulse but is lower in magnitude.
In any case, the whole blast is over in less than 16 ms and has included a supersonic high pressure blast front followed by a slower reversed blast-wind.
Typical broadcast quality video equipment shoots at 60 frames per second (non-interlaced) but 30 frames per second is also common and is displayed interlaced at 60 frames per second.
Assuming the faster 60 fps rate, a frame is shot every 16.6 milliseconds and so there is no way one would see a frame to frame INCREASE in blast effects from a High Explosive. It would ALL be over in the time it takes to take just ONE frame. In addition, the material leaving the building would be traveling at near 8 kps, and so would travel approx 400 ft in the span of one frame (twice the width of the towers) and this is clearly NOT what we see.
Thus the most frequently pointed to air/debris blast that is identified as a "squib", which we clearly see growing over multiple frames and which is not moving anywhere near the speed of a High explosive blast front, is obviously the result of a much slower physical process than would be exhibited by High Explosives.
Arthur
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Feb 25 2006, 04:50 AM)
It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: people who don't believe the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, not orchestrated by terrorists within our own government are SNOROM.
Since SNOROM is the OPPOSITE of MORONS.
I agree with Frater and its corollary:
It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: people who believe the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government are MORONS.
Arthur
Since SNOROM is the OPPOSITE of MORONS.
I agree with Frater and its corollary:
It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: people who believe the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government are MORONS.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 06:18 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 01:44 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 01:48 AM)
...you figured my thoughts on WTC 1 and 2 would apply to WTC 7????
Even though WTC 1 & 2 are totally different construction than WTC 7 and the damage was caused by a totally different mechanism. You know WTC 1 & 2 had these high speed planes impact them, WTC 7 had flying debris.
Even NIST, while spending millions on it, is apparently having a hard time, given the limited evidence available, explaining how the known damage and fires led to a progressive failure that led to a global collapse.
But seeing how great a job they did on explaining the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, I still have high expectations for their eventual WTC 7 report.
Arthur
(Emphasis mine)
I'm glad to have somebody like Foxx on my side. Making errors is quite human
Foxx not being a pope on a scientific forum is a credit to him, even if he is not trumpeting a change in viewpoint.
Your statement, on the other hand, which I have bolded, shows an unfortunate tendency to maintain and foster a pseudo-reality.
Even though WTC 1 & 2 are totally different construction than WTC 7 and the damage was caused by a totally different mechanism. You know WTC 1 & 2 had these high speed planes impact them, WTC 7 had flying debris.
Even NIST, while spending millions on it, is apparently having a hard time, given the limited evidence available, explaining how the known damage and fires led to a progressive failure that led to a global collapse.
But seeing how great a job they did on explaining the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, I still have high expectations for their eventual WTC 7 report.
Arthur
(Emphasis mine)
I'm glad to have somebody like Foxx on my side. Making errors is quite human
Foxx not being a pope on a scientific forum is a credit to him, even if he is not trumpeting a change in viewpoint.
Your statement, on the other hand, which I have bolded, shows an unfortunate tendency to maintain and foster a pseudo-reality.
QUOTE (Metamars Nov 2+ 2005)
Presumably, he is alluding to the NIST report. However, while I haven't read it, my understanding is that the NIST report ...
One's LAZY, the other a LIAR.
Nice pair.
I'm ALSO glad Foxx is on your side.
Arthur
Please, do tell us where the NIST report explained, in a scientific, non-hand-waiving fashion how a local collapse could have possibly turned into a global collapse. Also, where is their answers to Hoffman's and Jones' criticisms? Or should the NIST folks be immune from having to answer criticisms, in a way that some people feel that fundamentalist preachers should not have to explain their viewpoints, as long as they claim that they are "Biblical"?
Don't stop there. Do tell us how NIST explains one of the salient features - massive dust/gas ejecta, that eventually exceeded the volume of the towers, themselves. And where are their calculations showing what they claim has any plausibility? In fact, show us where they carefully measured the rate of speed of these ejecta, plus their best estimates for instantaneous change of volume, wrt time. Where are their calculations of how much force it needs to blow out a window, and where are their fluid hydrodynamical calculations that show how a squib, consisting of both air and powder/particulates could possibly travel downwards so many floors, and then outwards. Did the particles "tunnel" through all the air in between? Methinks not, nor any other plausible scenario, but perhaps a fluid hydrodynamical simulation will prove me wrong. So, where is it?
Other phenomena which don't fit with their largely implied Fairy Tale are the red-hot (actually, "salmon-yellow") pieces of metal pulled from the rubble piles weeks after collapses, the loss of angular momentum by the top of the South Tower (which acquired an angle of probably at least 25 degrees from vertical; just eyeballing, here), the rapid speed of the collapses, their overall symmetry, and the piece of exterior columns which were thrown laterally from the building. (Speaking of which, where are their measurements/calculations of the speed and force required to do this?)
Note WELL that I am not asking YOU for one of YOUR explanations. You claim that NIST did a "great job" explaining the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. This is exactly the opposite impression I have, for exactly the reasons I mention.
In particular, please spare us from any of your wildly implausible notions, such as the "Amazing Bellows Theory". You raise good point at times, at other times, ludicrous notions. I am not asking for either. I am asking for NIST's explanations. That's clear enough, isn't it?
If, by the phrase "great job", you mean "explaining" a portion of the phenomena, and ignoring so many (if not all) of the phenomena which put the lie to their Fairy Tale HAND-WAIVING, then you are absolutely correct. Hopefully, you do not take us for such fools and think such a definition of "great job" should have any meaning for us, whatsoever.
So do point out where NIST does a "great job" addressing all the points which I (for the most part), ONCE AGAIN have explicated. If we are to take you seriously, then you should be able to do this, and gladly, also.
You cannot, but as a propagandist propagating a pseudo-reality, that is not really your concern, now is it?
Note to activists:
Adoucette's post suggests a somewhat different approach to getting the collapse information into the right hands. Why not print out adoucette's claim of NIST's "great job", this response of mine, Dr. Jones' article, Hoffman's critique* of the NIST report, as well as some photographic quality reproductions (on photographic paper) of some of the phenomena I mentioned in this post, and take that to civil engineering professors in your local university? You can then ask them to try and figure out whether adoucette's claim has any merit, or not. Perhaps these civil engineers can find the stunningly illuminating explanations for the phenomena I mention in the NIST report. Certainly, after all this time, if adoucette had found them, he would have posted them.
We should give others a chance.
Oh, and if any civil engineers agree with adoucette, and are willing to explain why ignoring all the points I mentioned is justified, please do post their contact info, so that we can thank them for doing a "great job" in their profession.
Hoffman's critique ( "Building a Better Mirage - NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century") can be found at:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
One's LAZY, the other a LIAR.
Nice pair.
I'm ALSO glad Foxx is on your side.
Arthur
Please, do tell us where the NIST report explained, in a scientific, non-hand-waiving fashion how a local collapse could have possibly turned into a global collapse. Also, where is their answers to Hoffman's and Jones' criticisms? Or should the NIST folks be immune from having to answer criticisms, in a way that some people feel that fundamentalist preachers should not have to explain their viewpoints, as long as they claim that they are "Biblical"?
Don't stop there. Do tell us how NIST explains one of the salient features - massive dust/gas ejecta, that eventually exceeded the volume of the towers, themselves. And where are their calculations showing what they claim has any plausibility? In fact, show us where they carefully measured the rate of speed of these ejecta, plus their best estimates for instantaneous change of volume, wrt time. Where are their calculations of how much force it needs to blow out a window, and where are their fluid hydrodynamical calculations that show how a squib, consisting of both air and powder/particulates could possibly travel downwards so many floors, and then outwards. Did the particles "tunnel" through all the air in between? Methinks not, nor any other plausible scenario, but perhaps a fluid hydrodynamical simulation will prove me wrong. So, where is it?
Other phenomena which don't fit with their largely implied Fairy Tale are the red-hot (actually, "salmon-yellow") pieces of metal pulled from the rubble piles weeks after collapses, the loss of angular momentum by the top of the South Tower (which acquired an angle of probably at least 25 degrees from vertical; just eyeballing, here), the rapid speed of the collapses, their overall symmetry, and the piece of exterior columns which were thrown laterally from the building. (Speaking of which, where are their measurements/calculations of the speed and force required to do this?)
Note WELL that I am not asking YOU for one of YOUR explanations. You claim that NIST did a "great job" explaining the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. This is exactly the opposite impression I have, for exactly the reasons I mention.
In particular, please spare us from any of your wildly implausible notions, such as the "Amazing Bellows Theory". You raise good point at times, at other times, ludicrous notions. I am not asking for either. I am asking for NIST's explanations. That's clear enough, isn't it?
If, by the phrase "great job", you mean "explaining" a portion of the phenomena, and ignoring so many (if not all) of the phenomena which put the lie to their Fairy Tale HAND-WAIVING, then you are absolutely correct. Hopefully, you do not take us for such fools and think such a definition of "great job" should have any meaning for us, whatsoever.
So do point out where NIST does a "great job" addressing all the points which I (for the most part), ONCE AGAIN have explicated. If we are to take you seriously, then you should be able to do this, and gladly, also.
You cannot, but as a propagandist propagating a pseudo-reality, that is not really your concern, now is it?
Note to activists:
Adoucette's post suggests a somewhat different approach to getting the collapse information into the right hands. Why not print out adoucette's claim of NIST's "great job", this response of mine, Dr. Jones' article, Hoffman's critique* of the NIST report, as well as some photographic quality reproductions (on photographic paper) of some of the phenomena I mentioned in this post, and take that to civil engineering professors in your local university? You can then ask them to try and figure out whether adoucette's claim has any merit, or not. Perhaps these civil engineers can find the stunningly illuminating explanations for the phenomena I mention in the NIST report. Certainly, after all this time, if adoucette had found them, he would have posted them.
We should give others a chance.
Oh, and if any civil engineers agree with adoucette, and are willing to explain why ignoring all the points I mentioned is justified, please do post their contact info, so that we can thank them for doing a "great job" in their profession.
Hoffman's critique ( "Building a Better Mirage - NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century") can be found at:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
QUOTE (Coastal+Feb 25 2006, 05:22 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 02:51 AM)
Well HERE we have the line Foxx has been peddling FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS (and that's after 4 years of STUDY)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 22 2006, 10:33 PM)
The buildings fell as if they faced very little to NO resistance above air resistance.
and he backs it up with this challenge
and he backs it up with this challenge
QUOTE (Foxx+)
none of 'you' have provided ANY evidence that these 'free-falling' sections were actually 'outpacing' the fall of yet-to-be impacted 'intact sections'.