6 months and over 400 pages and not one physics member converted to the conspiracy theory side. In fact they only managed to inflame the members are garner their wrath. AMASING!
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 11:50 AM)
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?
And since you are not even willing to READ the report why should I take MY time to explain it to you?????
Foxx might have "accuracy issues", but at least you know he's taken the time to actually read the report.
You on the other hand are nothing but a cheerleader for Hoffman and Jones.
Like anyone at NIST cares what those two think?
Let me put it to you this way, anyone claiming there was a PYROCLASTIC flow from the collapse of the WTC towers is really just too dumb to have a rational discussion with.
But, since you asked, the NIST was an OPEN process allowing for public input and questions.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst_contact.htm
Did your HEROES ask questions?
If so, what did they ask and what were the results?
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments_submission.htm
Oh, and by the way, it was NOT NIST's job to come up with an answer to every strange thing that happened that day or to provide an explanation for every question someone might have, even if their name is Steven Jones.
They stated clearly and concisely that NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found.
What part of "NO EVIDENCE" do you NOT understand???
Since they found NO EVIDENCE that explosives had been used then:
Do you REALLY think NIST cared about how hot the debris pile got?
Do you Really think NIST was concerned as to why it burned for weeks and weeks?
Do you REALLY think NIST cared about the volume of the dust cloud?
Why would NIST CARE about the speed of the ejecta?
Do you think anyone SERIOUSLY considered doing "fluid hydrodynamical" calculations on what you think might be a SQUIB????
If so you are obviously Nukin Futs.
While apparently you want to know details behind the mechanism behind GLOBAL collapse, NIST found that so elementary as to be SELF EVIDENT for the WTC Towers. More importantly, its pretty obvious that we can't design building codes to STOP a local collapse like they had in the towers from progressing, thus the RATIONAL use of NIST's time and money was spent on what COULD be prevented. The LOCAL COLLAPSE. Which is why almost the ENTIRE REPORT is focused on that. So, when Jones and Hoffman start ranting about details of the GLOBAL COLLAPSE or the aftermath, ie. the debris pile, its all kind of pointless UNLESS they can FIRST show that the LOCAL COLLAPSE mechanism is INVALID.
So why don't you do us, and more importantly yourself a favor and read the friggin NIST report and then tell us where you think the ANALYSIS THEY DID was wrong. Because if you can't show that was wrong, the rest IS just hand waving.
Arthur
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?
And since you are not even willing to READ the report why should I take MY time to explain it to you?????
Foxx might have "accuracy issues", but at least you know he's taken the time to actually read the report.
You on the other hand are nothing but a cheerleader for Hoffman and Jones.
Like anyone at NIST cares what those two think?
Let me put it to you this way, anyone claiming there was a PYROCLASTIC flow from the collapse of the WTC towers is really just too dumb to have a rational discussion with.
But, since you asked, the NIST was an OPEN process allowing for public input and questions.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst_contact.htm
Did your HEROES ask questions?
If so, what did they ask and what were the results?
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments_submission.htm
Oh, and by the way, it was NOT NIST's job to come up with an answer to every strange thing that happened that day or to provide an explanation for every question someone might have, even if their name is Steven Jones.
They stated clearly and concisely that NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found.
What part of "NO EVIDENCE" do you NOT understand???
Since they found NO EVIDENCE that explosives had been used then:
Do you REALLY think NIST cared about how hot the debris pile got?
Do you Really think NIST was concerned as to why it burned for weeks and weeks?
Do you REALLY think NIST cared about the volume of the dust cloud?
Why would NIST CARE about the speed of the ejecta?
Do you think anyone SERIOUSLY considered doing "fluid hydrodynamical" calculations on what you think might be a SQUIB????
If so you are obviously Nukin Futs.
While apparently you want to know details behind the mechanism behind GLOBAL collapse, NIST found that so elementary as to be SELF EVIDENT for the WTC Towers. More importantly, its pretty obvious that we can't design building codes to STOP a local collapse like they had in the towers from progressing, thus the RATIONAL use of NIST's time and money was spent on what COULD be prevented. The LOCAL COLLAPSE. Which is why almost the ENTIRE REPORT is focused on that. So, when Jones and Hoffman start ranting about details of the GLOBAL COLLAPSE or the aftermath, ie. the debris pile, its all kind of pointless UNLESS they can FIRST show that the LOCAL COLLAPSE mechanism is INVALID.
So why don't you do us, and more importantly yourself a favor and read the friggin NIST report and then tell us where you think the ANALYSIS THEY DID was wrong. Because if you can't show that was wrong, the rest IS just hand waving.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 04:23 AM)
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.
What the ....?
I made two very concise points. You replied with a whole bunch of completely unrelated blather.
The objective is to fill the page with propaganda?
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.
What the ....?
I made two very concise points. You replied with a whole bunch of completely unrelated blather.
The objective is to fill the page with propaganda?
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 25 2006, 05:09 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 24 2006, 04:23 AM)
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.
What the ....?
I made two very concise points. You replied with a whole bunch of completely unrelated blather.
The objective is to fill the page with propaganda?
Their were no "squibs". I've seen more smoke from a tale pipe.
There was no demolition wave in advance of the initial collapse which is what I asked for. What you are seeing is what I have already dismissed as falling debris under pressure of the already collapsing building finding the path of least resistance. You can call it a "Squib", you can call it a 'fart' you can call it anything you want but it doesn't make it so.
If people here are going to spam then I forced to spam as an equalizer. you linked to a page with fireman's quotes taken out of context. I put them in context.
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.
What the ....?
I made two very concise points. You replied with a whole bunch of completely unrelated blather.
The objective is to fill the page with propaganda?
Their were no "squibs". I've seen more smoke from a tale pipe.
There was no demolition wave in advance of the initial collapse which is what I asked for. What you are seeing is what I have already dismissed as falling debris under pressure of the already collapsing building finding the path of least resistance. You can call it a "Squib", you can call it a 'fart' you can call it anything you want but it doesn't make it so.
If people here are going to spam then I forced to spam as an equalizer. you linked to a page with fireman's quotes taken out of context. I put them in context.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 25 2006, 04:37 PM)
6 months and over 400 pages and not one physics member converted to the conspiracy theory side. In fact they only managed to inflame the members are garner their wrath. AMASING!
nice appeal to the 'peer pressure', aka, 'the bandwagon appeal'.
much the same as rove and coulter ete al. have made being a democrat into the equivalent of being , 'worse than terrorists', 'panty waists', and 'treasonous' with strong insinuations that they should leave the country if they don't like the neocon way, because they are 'unamerican'.
such is the power of words.
and so the rhetorical meme wars continue, with common sense being some kind of weird oxy MORON.
i suggest you reconnect your severed corpus colossum, commie scents.
nice appeal to the 'peer pressure', aka, 'the bandwagon appeal'.
much the same as rove and coulter ete al. have made being a democrat into the equivalent of being , 'worse than terrorists', 'panty waists', and 'treasonous' with strong insinuations that they should leave the country if they don't like the neocon way, because they are 'unamerican'.
such is the power of words.
and so the rhetorical meme wars continue, with common sense being some kind of weird oxy MORON.
i suggest you reconnect your severed corpus colossum, commie scents.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 25 2006, 08:37 AM)
6 months and over 400 pages and not one physics member converted to the conspiracy theory side. In fact they only managed to inflame the members are garner their wrath. AMASING!
The amount and intensity of the attacks by disinformation teams and spammers proves you are wrong. You need to get RC some medication or a new profession.
Two interesting videos on thermite:
http://www.yikers.com/video_thermite_destroys_all.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
From the Forum:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...ndpost&p=929021
The amount and intensity of the attacks by disinformation teams and spammers proves you are wrong. You need to get RC some medication or a new profession.
Two interesting videos on thermite:
http://www.yikers.com/video_thermite_destroys_all.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
From the Forum:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...ndpost&p=929021
QUOTE (newton+Feb 25 2006, 01:23 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 25 2006, 04:37 PM)
6 months and over 400 pages and not one physics member converted to the conspiracy theory side. In fact they only managed to inflame the members are garner their wrath. AMASING!
nice appeal to the 'peer pressure', aka, 'the bandwagon appeal'.
much the same as rove and coulter ete al. have made being a democrat into the equivalent of being , 'worse than terrorists', 'panty waists', and 'treasonous' with strong insinuations that they should leave the country if they don't like the neocon way, because they are 'unamerican'.
such is the power of words.
and so the rhetorical meme wars continue, with common sense being some kind of weird oxy MORON.
i suggest you reconnect your severed corpus colossum, commie scents.
If Common Sense posted this 5 months and 350 pages ago then I'd agree with you.
Now, after 6 months and 400 pages, it is not an appeal to peer pressure and certainly not a join the bandwagon approach.
Its a statement of fact and also an indication, that of all the people who's only commonality was they were interested in Science in general and Physics in specific and who were here PRIOR to these threads, not one has professed to have changed their opinion based upon your supposed "UNDENIABLE" proof.
From the BEGINNING CD supporters have been saying if you examined the evidence the conclusion was OBVIOUS.
Guess that was a tad overstated.
Arthur
nice appeal to the 'peer pressure', aka, 'the bandwagon appeal'.
much the same as rove and coulter ete al. have made being a democrat into the equivalent of being , 'worse than terrorists', 'panty waists', and 'treasonous' with strong insinuations that they should leave the country if they don't like the neocon way, because they are 'unamerican'.
such is the power of words.
and so the rhetorical meme wars continue, with common sense being some kind of weird oxy MORON.
i suggest you reconnect your severed corpus colossum, commie scents.
If Common Sense posted this 5 months and 350 pages ago then I'd agree with you.
Now, after 6 months and 400 pages, it is not an appeal to peer pressure and certainly not a join the bandwagon approach.
Its a statement of fact and also an indication, that of all the people who's only commonality was they were interested in Science in general and Physics in specific and who were here PRIOR to these threads, not one has professed to have changed their opinion based upon your supposed "UNDENIABLE" proof.
From the BEGINNING CD supporters have been saying if you examined the evidence the conclusion was OBVIOUS.
Guess that was a tad overstated.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 03:48 PM)
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
the snorom meaning only applies here at physorg(as i coined it to hilite your constant badgering), as the opposite of YOUR constant use of MORONS to describe people who have the ability to reason and hold more than one fact in their head at a time.
NOROM. (no read-only-memory, and open platform for constant programming updates by handlers and controllers. this perfectly describes our official conspiracy theory shills and snakeoil salesmen)
i think the bright side to all this, is it is very clear from reading this thread from beginning to end, that there is one side that includes an insult with every post. and that side is the 'benevolent' supporters of the 'good guy' bush admin, and their fine 'steering the course' for america.
arthur, you programmed the 'automatically switch democrat vote to republican vote' routine for diebold, didn't you? or maybe the, 'generate thousands of bush votes', or, 'ignore dem votes'.
that's good, because the people can't be trusted to know what's good for the country. keep up the good work, arthur. hey! wanna make some cash? we can set up a wager on the next 'election', and the marks will THINK they are gambling against something that's not already predetermined, but you and i will know, eh, -WINK-!?
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
the snorom meaning only applies here at physorg(as i coined it to hilite your constant badgering), as the opposite of YOUR constant use of MORONS to describe people who have the ability to reason and hold more than one fact in their head at a time.
NOROM. (no read-only-memory, and open platform for constant programming updates by handlers and controllers. this perfectly describes our official conspiracy theory shills and snakeoil salesmen)
i think the bright side to all this, is it is very clear from reading this thread from beginning to end, that there is one side that includes an insult with every post. and that side is the 'benevolent' supporters of the 'good guy' bush admin, and their fine 'steering the course' for america.
arthur, you programmed the 'automatically switch democrat vote to republican vote' routine for diebold, didn't you? or maybe the, 'generate thousands of bush votes', or, 'ignore dem votes'.
that's good, because the people can't be trusted to know what's good for the country. keep up the good work, arthur. hey! wanna make some cash? we can set up a wager on the next 'election', and the marks will THINK they are gambling against something that's not already predetermined, but you and i will know, eh, -WINK-!?
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 04:56 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 11:50 AM)
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?
And since you are not even willing to READ the report why should I take MY time to explain it to you?????
Foxx might have "accuracy issues", but at least you know he's taken the time to actually read the report.
You on the other hand are nothing but a cheerleader for Hoffman and Jones.
Like anyone at NIST cares what those two think?
Let me put it to you this way, anyone claiming there was a PYROCLASTIC flow from the collapse of the WTC towers is really just too dumb to have a rational discussion with.
But, since you asked, the NIST was an OPEN process allowing for public input and questions.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst_contact.htm
Did your HEROES ask questions?
If so, what did they ask and what were the results?
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments_submission.htm
Oh, and by the way, it was NOT NIST's job to come up with an answer to every strange thing that happened that day or to provide an explanation for every question someone might have, even if their name is Steven Jones.
They stated clearly and concisely that NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found.
What part of "NO EVIDENCE" do you NOT understand???
Since they found NO EVIDENCE that explosives had been used then:
Do you REALLY think NIST cared about how hot the debris pile got?
Do you Really think NIST was concerned as to why it burned for weeks and weeks?
Do you REALLY think NIST cared about the volume of the dust cloud?
Why would NIST CARE about the speed of the ejecta?
Do you think anyone SERIOUSLY considered doing "fluid hydrodynamical" calculations on what you think might be a SQUIB????
If so you are obviously Nukin Futs.
While apparently you want to know details behind the mechanism behind GLOBAL collapse, NIST found that so elementary as to be SELF EVIDENT for the WTC Towers. More importantly, its pretty obvious that we can't design building codes to STOP a local collapse like they had in the towers from progressing, thus the RATIONAL use of NIST's time and money was spent on what COULD be prevented. The LOCAL COLLAPSE. Which is why almost the ENTIRE REPORT is focused on that. So, when Jones and Hoffman start ranting about details of the GLOBAL COLLAPSE or the aftermath, ie. the debris pile, its all kind of pointless UNLESS they can FIRST show that the LOCAL COLLAPSE mechanism is INVALID.
So why don't you do us, and more importantly yourself a favor and read the friggin NIST report and then tell us where you think the ANALYSIS THEY DID was wrong. Because if you can't show that was wrong, the rest IS just hand waving.
Arthur
Gee whiz, are you implying that if Jones' had filled out a FOIA request early enough, or appeared at an open session, that NIST would have actually tackled the substantial body of evidence which points to their Fairy Tales as being just that? Have you considered the possiblity that Jones, for one, actually thought NIST might have been trustworthy, and took a "wait and see" attitude?
Perhaps, if you believe this, you also believe that if we ask President Bush very nicely to appoint a special prosecutor, with subpoena power, to put FAA, NORAD, and Secret Service personnel under oath to find out exactly what happened, on 911 that he would actually do so. And, if we say "Please, with a cherry on top", that he will order the Pentagon/FBI to fork over videos of what hit the Pentagaon and find out who made the decision to suppress this evidence all this time (and/or, more likely, I'm afraid, to destroy it.)
In any event, Jones' has publicly called for the release of evidence now. As usual, you have no trouble at all in Jones (and others) not being able to get their hands on physical evidence (such as the metal slag, that Jones has published pictures of), but this is consistent with your peculiar, self-validating mindset.
As for NIST considering the "details behind the mechanism behind GLOBAL collapse" to be "so elementary as to be SELF EVIDENT", this is sheer nonsense. It's certainly possible that many NIST scientists thought global collapse to be inevitable, if local collapse ensued.
That is certainly not the same as showing, in any technically meaning way, that it had to occur. FULL STOP.
Such a belief is even more dissimilar to showing that they can plausibly explain all the phenomena which I have mentioned (once again). Phenomena which certainly (with the possible exception of the ejecta, in the collapse zone) point away from the Fairy Tale collapse versions which they waved their hands about.
Is that good science - to ignore phenomena which contradict what you're implying? Not only is it not good science, it's dishonest. They should hang their heads in shame.
So, when Jones and Hoffman start ranting about details of the GLOBAL COLLAPSE or the aftermath, ie. the debris pile, its all kind of pointless UNLESS they can FIRST show that the LOCAL COLLAPSE mechanism is INVALID.
Sheer, unadulterated, poppycock. This has been gone over so many times - how is it possible that you have still not grasped the following:
Local collapse <> Globla collapse
Local collapse is a necessary condition for a global collapse, but it is not a sufficient condition. If you really can't grasp this concept, ask a mathematician to explain it to you.
Neither Jones, Hoffman, nor myself believe local collapse could have ensued as per Fairy Tales versions. This is not the same as having proved it did not. As you are well aware, I have urged research granting local collapse initiation. It's easier to disprove Fairy Tale handwaving scenarios if you do this (with the probable exception of a finite element analysis, which I expect could not be meaningfully treated this way.)
Sheer, unadulterated, poppycock. This has been gone over so many times - how is it possible that you have still not grasped the following:
Local collapse <> Globla collapse
Local collapse is a necessary condition for a global collapse, but it is not a sufficient condition. If you really can't grasp this concept, ask a mathematician to explain it to you.
Neither Jones, Hoffman, nor myself believe local collapse could have ensued as per Fairy Tales versions. This is not the same as having proved it did not. As you are well aware, I have urged research granting local collapse initiation. It's easier to disprove Fairy Tale handwaving scenarios if you do this (with the probable exception of a finite element analysis, which I expect could not be meaningfully treated this way.)
And since you are not even willing to READ the report why should I take MY time to explain it to you?????
I don't want you to explain anything, I just want you to cite chapter and verse where the phenomena I mentioned are suitably dealt with. If you do this, then I promise that I will read those relevant chapter/verses so cited.
You cannot.
Oh, and by the way, it was NOT NIST's job to come up with an answer to every strange thing that happened that day or to provide an explanation for every question someone might have, even if their name is Steven Jones.
They stated clearly and concisely that NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found.
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue. If they had seriously tried to explain these phenomena, their implied Fairy Tale would have been clearly exposed for what it is.
As for their incredible statement that "NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demoltion was found", they are simply lying. Jones' paper is mostly about evidence for CD, as you know very well.
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?
And since you are not even willing to READ the report why should I take MY time to explain it to you?????
Foxx might have "accuracy issues", but at least you know he's taken the time to actually read the report.
You on the other hand are nothing but a cheerleader for Hoffman and Jones.
Like anyone at NIST cares what those two think?
Let me put it to you this way, anyone claiming there was a PYROCLASTIC flow from the collapse of the WTC towers is really just too dumb to have a rational discussion with.
But, since you asked, the NIST was an OPEN process allowing for public input and questions.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst_contact.htm
Did your HEROES ask questions?
If so, what did they ask and what were the results?
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments_submission.htm
Oh, and by the way, it was NOT NIST's job to come up with an answer to every strange thing that happened that day or to provide an explanation for every question someone might have, even if their name is Steven Jones.
They stated clearly and concisely that NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found.
What part of "NO EVIDENCE" do you NOT understand???
Since they found NO EVIDENCE that explosives had been used then:
Do you REALLY think NIST cared about how hot the debris pile got?
Do you Really think NIST was concerned as to why it burned for weeks and weeks?
Do you REALLY think NIST cared about the volume of the dust cloud?
Why would NIST CARE about the speed of the ejecta?
Do you think anyone SERIOUSLY considered doing "fluid hydrodynamical" calculations on what you think might be a SQUIB????
If so you are obviously Nukin Futs.
While apparently you want to know details behind the mechanism behind GLOBAL collapse, NIST found that so elementary as to be SELF EVIDENT for the WTC Towers. More importantly, its pretty obvious that we can't design building codes to STOP a local collapse like they had in the towers from progressing, thus the RATIONAL use of NIST's time and money was spent on what COULD be prevented. The LOCAL COLLAPSE. Which is why almost the ENTIRE REPORT is focused on that. So, when Jones and Hoffman start ranting about details of the GLOBAL COLLAPSE or the aftermath, ie. the debris pile, its all kind of pointless UNLESS they can FIRST show that the LOCAL COLLAPSE mechanism is INVALID.
So why don't you do us, and more importantly yourself a favor and read the friggin NIST report and then tell us where you think the ANALYSIS THEY DID was wrong. Because if you can't show that was wrong, the rest IS just hand waving.
Arthur
Gee whiz, are you implying that if Jones' had filled out a FOIA request early enough, or appeared at an open session, that NIST would have actually tackled the substantial body of evidence which points to their Fairy Tales as being just that? Have you considered the possiblity that Jones, for one, actually thought NIST might have been trustworthy, and took a "wait and see" attitude?
Perhaps, if you believe this, you also believe that if we ask President Bush very nicely to appoint a special prosecutor, with subpoena power, to put FAA, NORAD, and Secret Service personnel under oath to find out exactly what happened, on 911 that he would actually do so. And, if we say "Please, with a cherry on top", that he will order the Pentagon/FBI to fork over videos of what hit the Pentagaon and find out who made the decision to suppress this evidence all this time (and/or, more likely, I'm afraid, to destroy it.)
In any event, Jones' has publicly called for the release of evidence now. As usual, you have no trouble at all in Jones (and others) not being able to get their hands on physical evidence (such as the metal slag, that Jones has published pictures of), but this is consistent with your peculiar, self-validating mindset.
As for NIST considering the "details behind the mechanism behind GLOBAL collapse" to be "so elementary as to be SELF EVIDENT", this is sheer nonsense. It's certainly possible that many NIST scientists thought global collapse to be inevitable, if local collapse ensued.
That is certainly not the same as showing, in any technically meaning way, that it had to occur. FULL STOP.
Such a belief is even more dissimilar to showing that they can plausibly explain all the phenomena which I have mentioned (once again). Phenomena which certainly (with the possible exception of the ejecta, in the collapse zone) point away from the Fairy Tale collapse versions which they waved their hands about.
Is that good science - to ignore phenomena which contradict what you're implying? Not only is it not good science, it's dishonest. They should hang their heads in shame.
QUOTE
So, when Jones and Hoffman start ranting about details of the GLOBAL COLLAPSE or the aftermath, ie. the debris pile, its all kind of pointless UNLESS they can FIRST show that the LOCAL COLLAPSE mechanism is INVALID.
Sheer, unadulterated, poppycock. This has been gone over so many times - how is it possible that you have still not grasped the following:
Local collapse <> Globla collapse
Local collapse is a necessary condition for a global collapse, but it is not a sufficient condition. If you really can't grasp this concept, ask a mathematician to explain it to you.
Neither Jones, Hoffman, nor myself believe local collapse could have ensued as per Fairy Tales versions. This is not the same as having proved it did not. As you are well aware, I have urged research granting local collapse initiation. It's easier to disprove Fairy Tale handwaving scenarios if you do this (with the probable exception of a finite element analysis, which I expect could not be meaningfully treated this way.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
So, when Jones and Hoffman start ranting about details of the GLOBAL COLLAPSE or the aftermath, ie. the debris pile, its all kind of pointless UNLESS they can FIRST show that the LOCAL COLLAPSE mechanism is INVALID. |
Sheer, unadulterated, poppycock. This has been gone over so many times - how is it possible that you have still not grasped the following:
Local collapse <> Globla collapse
Local collapse is a necessary condition for a global collapse, but it is not a sufficient condition. If you really can't grasp this concept, ask a mathematician to explain it to you.
Neither Jones, Hoffman, nor myself believe local collapse could have ensued as per Fairy Tales versions. This is not the same as having proved it did not. As you are well aware, I have urged research granting local collapse initiation. It's easier to disprove Fairy Tale handwaving scenarios if you do this (with the probable exception of a finite element analysis, which I expect could not be meaningfully treated this way.)
And since you are not even willing to READ the report why should I take MY time to explain it to you?????
I don't want you to explain anything, I just want you to cite chapter and verse where the phenomena I mentioned are suitably dealt with. If you do this, then I promise that I will read those relevant chapter/verses so cited.
You cannot.
QUOTE
Oh, and by the way, it was NOT NIST's job to come up with an answer to every strange thing that happened that day or to provide an explanation for every question someone might have, even if their name is Steven Jones.
They stated clearly and concisely that NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found.
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue. If they had seriously tried to explain these phenomena, their implied Fairy Tale would have been clearly exposed for what it is.
As for their incredible statement that "NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demoltion was found", they are simply lying. Jones' paper is mostly about evidence for CD, as you know very well.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 25 2006, 04:37 PM)
6 months and over 400 pages and not one physics member converted to the conspiracy theory side. In fact they only managed to inflame the members are garner their wrath. AMASING!
Huh? How do you know this? If "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", then we can also conclude that no self-identified person with a physics background has converted to one of the NIST, FEMA, et. al. Fairy Tales.
Of course, one difference between now and 6 months ago is the appearance of Scholars for 911 Truth, of which the current membership lists 11 members with some background in physics:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
Huh? How do you know this? If "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", then we can also conclude that no self-identified person with a physics background has converted to one of the NIST, FEMA, et. al. Fairy Tales.
Of course, one difference between now and 6 months ago is the appearance of Scholars for 911 Truth, of which the current membership lists 11 members with some background in physics:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 06:15 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 25 2006, 04:37 PM)
6 months and over 400 pages and not one physics member converted to the conspiracy theory side. In fact they only managed to inflame the members are garner their wrath. AMASING!
Huh? How do you know this? If "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", then we can also conclude that no self-identified person with a physics background has converted to one of the NIST, FEMA, et. al. Fairy Tales.
Of course, one difference between now and 6 months ago is the appearance of Scholars for 911 Truth, of which the current membership lists 11 members with some background in physics:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
OK, I can rephrase...
6 months and over 400 pages and not one physics member openly converted to the conspiracy theory side. In fact they only managed to openly inflame the members and are garner their wrath. AMASING!
Feel better?
it was NOT NIST's job to come up with an answer to every strange thing that happened that day or to provide an explanation for every question someone might have, even if their name is Steven Jones.
They stated clearly and concisely that NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found.
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue. If they had seriously tried to explain these phenomena, their implied Fairy Tale would have been clearly exposed for what it is.
As for their incredible statement that "NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demoltion was found", they are simply lying. Jones' paper is mostly about evidence for CD, as you know very well.
Which sums up nicely why a discussion with you is pointless.
You won't read the report, yet you formulate beliefs as to its veracity.
In fact you state the REASON for the report was to LIE.
As if ALL these scientists would LIE FOR BUSH and support the cover up of the murder of their countrymen (hard to believe it wouldn't include some of their friends and relatives as well)
Yet not a single TALL BUILDING ARCHITECT or STRUCTURAL ENGINEER has called them on this lie.
The insurance companies will pay out Billions, but will keep quiet.
The building industry and consultants ignore the lies even though the because of the NIST report they have come up with numerous recommendations which will cost the industry money and further will have global impact on building methods.
Engineers in OTHER COUNTRIES, like FRANCE or GERMANY, where being Anti-American is CERTAINLY not frowned upon, have not made a PEEP of protest?
Which seems to imply that the WHOLE FRIGGIN ARCHITECTURAL COMMUNITY is in Bush's pocket.
What a Guy.
Pulls off the Conspiracy of the Century and then orchestrates a GLOBAL cover up.
I bet he gets the Constitution changed so he can run for a THIRD TERM.
And, of course Diebold voting booths will insure he WINS
Arthur
Pulls off the Conspiracy of the Century and then orchestrates a GLOBAL cover up.
I bet he gets the Constitution changed so he can run for a THIRD TERM.
And, of course Diebold voting booths will insure he WINS
Arthur
i know at least three structural engineers who have called the lie.
one of them is about to cough up 13 grand.
you can start sweating now.
and, 'duh', 'they' are globalists(this means they are all over the globe, and trying to create a one world government, since you seem to having trouble with 'understanding'), and bush and pals are mere captains and colonels, sargeants and maybe a few generals(like perle, rove, et al.).
Huh? How do you know this? If "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", then we can also conclude that no self-identified person with a physics background has converted to one of the NIST, FEMA, et. al. Fairy Tales.
Of course, one difference between now and 6 months ago is the appearance of Scholars for 911 Truth, of which the current membership lists 11 members with some background in physics:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
OK, I can rephrase...
6 months and over 400 pages and not one physics member openly converted to the conspiracy theory side. In fact they only managed to openly inflame the members and are garner their wrath. AMASING!
Feel better?
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 06:15 PM)
Of course, one difference between now and 6 months ago is the appearance of Scholars for 911 Truth, of which the current membership lists 11 members with some background in physics:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
And BTW, you are doing exactly the dishonest thing I said people like you would do with the list of members. YOU said this was a list of pro and con people yet you portray it now as if everone on that list is for CD.
THAT'S DISHONEST
Why don't you seperate the list by pro and con???
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
And BTW, you are doing exactly the dishonest thing I said people like you would do with the list of members. YOU said this was a list of pro and con people yet you portray it now as if everone on that list is for CD.
THAT'S DISHONEST
Why don't you seperate the list by pro and con???
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
it was NOT NIST's job to come up with an answer to every strange thing that happened that day or to provide an explanation for every question someone might have, even if their name is Steven Jones.
They stated clearly and concisely that NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found.
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue. If they had seriously tried to explain these phenomena, their implied Fairy Tale would have been clearly exposed for what it is.
As for their incredible statement that "NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demoltion was found", they are simply lying. Jones' paper is mostly about evidence for CD, as you know very well.
Which sums up nicely why a discussion with you is pointless.
You won't read the report, yet you formulate beliefs as to its veracity.
In fact you state the REASON for the report was to LIE.
As if ALL these scientists would LIE FOR BUSH and support the cover up of the murder of their countrymen (hard to believe it wouldn't include some of their friends and relatives as well)
Yet not a single TALL BUILDING ARCHITECT or STRUCTURAL ENGINEER has called them on this lie.
The insurance companies will pay out Billions, but will keep quiet.
The building industry and consultants ignore the lies even though the because of the NIST report they have come up with numerous recommendations which will cost the industry money and further will have global impact on building methods.
Engineers in OTHER COUNTRIES, like FRANCE or GERMANY, where being Anti-American is CERTAINLY not frowned upon, have not made a PEEP of protest?
Which seems to imply that the WHOLE FRIGGIN ARCHITECTURAL COMMUNITY is in Bush's pocket.
What a Guy.
Pulls off the Conspiracy of the Century and then orchestrates a GLOBAL cover up.
I bet he gets the Constitution changed so he can run for a THIRD TERM.
And, of course Diebold voting booths will insure he WINS
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 06:40 PM)
Pulls off the Conspiracy of the Century and then orchestrates a GLOBAL cover up.
I bet he gets the Constitution changed so he can run for a THIRD TERM.
And, of course Diebold voting booths will insure he WINS
Arthur
i know at least three structural engineers who have called the lie.
one of them is about to cough up 13 grand.
you can start sweating now.
and, 'duh', 'they' are globalists(this means they are all over the globe, and trying to create a one world government, since you seem to having trouble with 'understanding'), and bush and pals are mere captains and colonels, sargeants and maybe a few generals(like perle, rove, et al.).
QUOTE (newton+Feb 25 2006, 02:54 PM)
i know at least three structural engineers who have called the lie.
one of them is about to cough up 13 grand.
you can start sweating now.
Why should I start sweating????
If by the remotest chance in the world your fantasy WERE true, and there was ACTUAL PROOF of same, I'd be stormin the gates demanding their heads.
As to the SE's you know that have called it a lie.
Have they done so in PUBLIC?
Arthur
one of them is about to cough up 13 grand.
you can start sweating now.
Why should I start sweating????
If by the remotest chance in the world your fantasy WERE true, and there was ACTUAL PROOF of same, I'd be stormin the gates demanding their heads.
As to the SE's you know that have called it a lie.
Have they done so in PUBLIC?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 03:31 PM)
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
Oh... Great Clucker...
the thermobaric explosion(s) I am speaking about has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'squibs'. Are you purposely creating strawmen for distractions, or is it that you can't follow a discussion?
As for your nonsense above, you seem to have forgotten that the high pressure blast wave falls off rapidly by the square of the distance travelled from the source. By the time the explosive force had travelled from the core to the opening it certainly wouldn't be travelling at supersonic speed, so once again you have just wasted your time posting bs explanations of things you do not understand... not that that has ever kept you from babbling before
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
Oh... Great Clucker...
the thermobaric explosion(s) I am speaking about has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'squibs'. Are you purposely creating strawmen for distractions, or is it that you can't follow a discussion?
As for your nonsense above, you seem to have forgotten that the high pressure blast wave falls off rapidly by the square of the distance travelled from the source. By the time the explosive force had travelled from the core to the opening it certainly wouldn't be travelling at supersonic speed, so once again you have just wasted your time posting bs explanations of things you do not understand... not that that has ever kept you from babbling before
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 07:31 AM)
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
Depends on the size and how it is channeled (US forces have thermobaric grenades):
"Much of the information about thermobaric weapons has been classified. That’s a problem for homeland security first responders such as police and firefighters, Burky said. They are not being provided with important information about thermobaric weapons, such as safe standoff distances, how the much more powerful blast of a thermobaric weapon would be deflected and channeled by buildings and how to render thermobaric weapons safe, he said."
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000747.html
This could be used after thermite cut steel columns and supports.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
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
Depends on the size and how it is channeled (US forces have thermobaric grenades):
"Much of the information about thermobaric weapons has been classified. That’s a problem for homeland security first responders such as police and firefighters, Burky said. They are not being provided with important information about thermobaric weapons, such as safe standoff distances, how the much more powerful blast of a thermobaric weapon would be deflected and channeled by buildings and how to render thermobaric weapons safe, he said."
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000747.html
This could be used after thermite cut steel columns and supports.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 03:24 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 03:31 PM)
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
Oh... Great Clucker...
the thermobaric explosion(s) I am speaking about has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'squibs'. Are you purposely creating strawmen for distractions, or is it that you can't follow a discussion?
As for your nonsense above, you seem to have forgotten that the high pressure blast wave falls off rapidly by the square of the distance travelled from the source. By the time the explosive force had travelled from the core to the opening it certainly wouldn't be travelling at supersonic speed, so once again you have just wasted your time posting bs explanations of things you do not understand... not that that has ever kept you from babbling before
Foxx,
1) Do you see YOUR name in that post?
2) Are YOU referenced in ANY WAY?
3) DO I mention Thermobaric explosions?
Here's some hints to the above questions, since you appear to be more mentally challenged than usual.
1 = NO
2 = NO
3 = NO
As to the ACTUAL point of the post:
Are you CERTAIN that a high pressure blast falls off at the SQUARE of the distance?
Hint (no)
Would you expect the windows to withstand the overpressure from a dozen or more cutting charges, each containing several pounds of High Explosives and each going off at nearly the same time on a floor and each generating initial overpressures equal to 200,000 times atmospheric pressure?
Hint (no)
Are you EQUALY CERTAIN that the blast front would be SUB-SONIC within 100 feet of ANY High Explosive detonation?
Hint (no)
Do you think the AMOUNT of High Explosives would matter? Would the blast front be moving at the same speed 100 feet away from a 1/4 stick of dynamite vs a 1/4 ton of dynamite?
Hint (no)
What about the speed of the debris? Does its speed decrease at the square of the distance as well?
Hint (no)
Hint (Arthur)
Have you been tested for parapsychic abilities lately ? You may be more prophetic that you think.
But who knows at this point?
Who will be the next 'emperor' ? (in the roman sense)?
I doubt it will be Bush II. But hopefully, it will be a good emperor.
Regarding your statements that people who have not read the NIST report are somehow 'missing' something, I think you place far too much importance on the 'Final Report'. I don't see that they have addressed the #1 objective which was to define HOW the towers fell. They point blank tell you that they will NOT fulfill this objective.
It is a nice report if you want all the elaborate details of how fires react in building environments. I found all the research which this led to, quite interesting.
They did an excellent job of explaining every last detail of aircraft vs building structures and how these things interact. I was compelled to look into this deeply.
Nevertheless all of these 'things' can be researched in much greater depth outside of the NIST proclamation.
The problem I found with it, was that... they didn't tell me what I want to know ...(and which they originally promised was their # 1 objective)!.
The physics related to fire-engineering has been amply posted on this board. If you have done your homework and researched all the links posted, (even if you knew nothing about fire-engineering when you arrived here), you must surely know NOW.... how fire behaves. It has been a great learning experience from my perspective and I thank all who have posted relevant links in this area (from both perspectives).
Now while all that fire-talk, and aircraft talk, and expending great energies to make us all aware of the itty-bitty details on the mettalurgical and structural strengths of the steel...
(which I found quite interesting in comparison with reinforced composites chemistry and the mechanical properties similarities and differences)... Still
Yeah?... Soooooooo... what are you telling me?
Aircraft impacted the towers --- gotcha.
Jet-Fuel fireballs erupted --- gotcha.
Fires Ensued --- gotcha.
Have you been tested for parapsychic abilities lately ? You may be more prophetic that you think.
But who knows at this point?
Who will be the next 'emperor' ? (in the roman sense)?
I doubt it will be Bush II. But hopefully, it will be a good emperor.
Regarding your statements that people who have not read the NIST report are somehow 'missing' something, I think you place far too much importance on the 'Final Report'. I don't see that they have addressed the #1 objective which was to define HOW the towers fell. They point blank tell you that they will NOT fulfill this objective.
It is a nice report if you want all the elaborate details of how fires react in building environments. I found all the research which this led to, quite interesting.
They did an excellent job of explaining every last detail of aircraft vs building structures and how these things interact. I was compelled to look into this deeply.
Nevertheless all of these 'things' can be researched in much greater depth outside of the NIST proclamation.
The problem I found with it, was that... they didn't tell me what I want to know ...(and which they originally promised was their # 1 objective)!.
The physics related to fire-engineering has been amply posted on this board. If you have done your homework and researched all the links posted, (even if you knew nothing about fire-engineering when you arrived here), you must surely know NOW.... how fire behaves. It has been a great learning experience from my perspective and I thank all who have posted relevant links in this area (from both perspectives).
Now while all that fire-talk, and aircraft talk, and expending great energies to make us all aware of the itty-bitty details on the mettalurgical and structural strengths of the steel...
(which I found quite interesting in comparison with reinforced composites chemistry and the mechanical properties similarities and differences)... Still
Yeah?... Soooooooo... what are you telling me?
Aircraft impacted the towers --- gotcha.
Jet-Fuel fireballs erupted --- gotcha.
Fires Ensued --- gotcha.
And then they just sorta 'fell down'.... well, you 'know' what I mean...
End of class now kiddies, everyone go on home and watch Cap't Kangaroo.
Well, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't 'wash' for me.
How could those combination of factors lead to GLOBAL Disproportionate Progressive Collapse? I can well understand these combination of factors leading UP TO a localized collapse... happens all the time in major fires... but I have seen absolutely NO evidence at all that local collapses lead invariably to global collapses.
And that (in my opinion) is the new fairy tale which NIST is trying to sell.
(but investigating a BJ is worth twice as much ???). ...
'Luke... come away from the dark side'
I certainly would think that the amount of explosives would matter.
Kindly refresh my memory where I have suggested either of the above postulations. I don't recall stating that 1/4 ton of explosives would be required to set off the 'squibs' (that I have seen evidence of)?
It is pretty difficult to do empirical calculations from what we know, but from reading up on METC ... ( http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...4&RS=PN/6766744 ), and thermobaric weapons... this whole story is starting to make much more sense.
2 years ago I had no inkling whatsoever that these incendiary weapons existed. Now they are starting to explain some of the questions which I previously held.
I have seen the obfuscators quickly trying to lead away from from the post made by reasonwhy regarding the 'smoking-gun' melting of columns. The 'original theory' from the gravity-driven collapse supporters...
Yeah... the columns just melted... that's it.
Look again...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/thermite.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite03.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thernite04.jpg
Any questions?...
No sir, IMHO, that's not some computer melting there... Them 'drips' are coming from the ceiling on that floor (and unless I am mistaken ... they didn't attach the computers to the ceilings).
I have no doubt that the NIST library is well worth $15,000. I wonder IF you came up with that, would they really release ALL they have access to ???
I guarantee ...(when I sell the $50,000 dollars worth of hardware I have erected to sell clicks on my website)... I'm going to buy a triplicate copy of that library.
More to come... I am sure.
How's the investigation coming, 'Inspector Clouseau'... ?
Thanks, reasonwhy.
...
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
Oh... Great Clucker...
the thermobaric explosion(s) I am speaking about has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'squibs'. Are you purposely creating strawmen for distractions, or is it that you can't follow a discussion?
As for your nonsense above, you seem to have forgotten that the high pressure blast wave falls off rapidly by the square of the distance travelled from the source. By the time the explosive force had travelled from the core to the opening it certainly wouldn't be travelling at supersonic speed, so once again you have just wasted your time posting bs explanations of things you do not understand... not that that has ever kept you from babbling before
Foxx,
1) Do you see YOUR name in that post?
2) Are YOU referenced in ANY WAY?
3) DO I mention Thermobaric explosions?
Here's some hints to the above questions, since you appear to be more mentally challenged than usual.
1 = NO
2 = NO
3 = NO
As to the ACTUAL point of the post:
Are you CERTAIN that a high pressure blast falls off at the SQUARE of the distance?
Hint (no)
Would you expect the windows to withstand the overpressure from a dozen or more cutting charges, each containing several pounds of High Explosives and each going off at nearly the same time on a floor and each generating initial overpressures equal to 200,000 times atmospheric pressure?
Hint (no)
Are you EQUALY CERTAIN that the blast front would be SUB-SONIC within 100 feet of ANY High Explosive detonation?
Hint (no)
Do you think the AMOUNT of High Explosives would matter? Would the blast front be moving at the same speed 100 feet away from a 1/4 stick of dynamite vs a 1/4 ton of dynamite?
Hint (no)
What about the speed of the debris? Does its speed decrease at the square of the distance as well?
Hint (no)
Hint (Arthur)
NOROM ALERT.
I still can't believe this thread.
The norom vs. the morons.
I only came here because an (apparent) shill appeared on page 4.
It's a barrel of laughs.
http://www.rense.com/general20/unholy.htm
The Unholy Alliance -Christianity & The New World Order: Unity: A One World Religion? 'In light of the ties between nearly all Christian "evangelicals" with Rev. Moon, the CIA, the Council for Foreign Relations, the Trilateral commission, the Bush family and Bush Sr's "New World Order", is it any wonder that after the September 11th tragedy, Billy Graham prayed in the name of God, AND ALLAH . . .')
I still can't believe this thread.
The norom vs. the morons.
I only came here because an (apparent) shill appeared on page 4.
It's a barrel of laughs.
http://www.rense.com/general20/unholy.htm
The Unholy Alliance -Christianity & The New World Order: Unity: A One World Religion? 'In light of the ties between nearly all Christian "evangelicals" with Rev. Moon, the CIA, the Council for Foreign Relations, the Trilateral commission, the Bush family and Bush Sr's "New World Order", is it any wonder that after the September 11th tragedy, Billy Graham prayed in the name of God, AND ALLAH . . .')
QUOTE
by arthur
Pulls off the Conspiracy of the Century and then orchestrates a GLOBAL cover up.
I bet he gets the Constitution changed so he can run for a THIRD TERM.
And, of course Diebold voting booths will insure he WINS
Arthur
Pulls off the Conspiracy of the Century and then orchestrates a GLOBAL cover up.
I bet he gets the Constitution changed so he can run for a THIRD TERM.
And, of course Diebold voting booths will insure he WINS
Arthur
Have you been tested for parapsychic abilities lately ? You may be more prophetic that you think.
But who knows at this point?
Who will be the next 'emperor' ? (in the roman sense)?
I doubt it will be Bush II. But hopefully, it will be a good emperor.
Regarding your statements that people who have not read the NIST report are somehow 'missing' something, I think you place far too much importance on the 'Final Report'. I don't see that they have addressed the #1 objective which was to define HOW the towers fell. They point blank tell you that they will NOT fulfill this objective.
It is a nice report if you want all the elaborate details of how fires react in building environments. I found all the research which this led to, quite interesting.
They did an excellent job of explaining every last detail of aircraft vs building structures and how these things interact. I was compelled to look into this deeply.
Nevertheless all of these 'things' can be researched in much greater depth outside of the NIST proclamation.
The problem I found with it, was that... they didn't tell me what I want to know ...(and which they originally promised was their # 1 objective)!.
The physics related to fire-engineering has been amply posted on this board. If you have done your homework and researched all the links posted, (even if you knew nothing about fire-engineering when you arrived here), you must surely know NOW.... how fire behaves. It has been a great learning experience from my perspective and I thank all who have posted relevant links in this area (from both perspectives).
Now while all that fire-talk, and aircraft talk, and expending great energies to make us all aware of the itty-bitty details on the mettalurgical and structural strengths of the steel...
(which I found quite interesting in comparison with reinforced composites chemistry and the mechanical properties similarities and differences)... Still
Yeah?... Soooooooo... what are you telling me?
Aircraft impacted the towers --- gotcha.
Jet-Fuel fireballs erupted --- gotcha.
Fires Ensued --- gotcha.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by arthur Pulls off the Conspiracy of the Century and then orchestrates a GLOBAL cover up. I bet he gets the Constitution changed so he can run for a THIRD TERM. And, of course Diebold voting booths will insure he WINS Arthur |
Have you been tested for parapsychic abilities lately ? You may be more prophetic that you think.
But who knows at this point?
Who will be the next 'emperor' ? (in the roman sense)?
I doubt it will be Bush II. But hopefully, it will be a good emperor.
Regarding your statements that people who have not read the NIST report are somehow 'missing' something, I think you place far too much importance on the 'Final Report'. I don't see that they have addressed the #1 objective which was to define HOW the towers fell. They point blank tell you that they will NOT fulfill this objective.
It is a nice report if you want all the elaborate details of how fires react in building environments. I found all the research which this led to, quite interesting.
They did an excellent job of explaining every last detail of aircraft vs building structures and how these things interact. I was compelled to look into this deeply.
Nevertheless all of these 'things' can be researched in much greater depth outside of the NIST proclamation.
The problem I found with it, was that... they didn't tell me what I want to know ...(and which they originally promised was their # 1 objective)!.
The physics related to fire-engineering has been amply posted on this board. If you have done your homework and researched all the links posted, (even if you knew nothing about fire-engineering when you arrived here), you must surely know NOW.... how fire behaves. It has been a great learning experience from my perspective and I thank all who have posted relevant links in this area (from both perspectives).
Now while all that fire-talk, and aircraft talk, and expending great energies to make us all aware of the itty-bitty details on the mettalurgical and structural strengths of the steel...
(which I found quite interesting in comparison with reinforced composites chemistry and the mechanical properties similarities and differences)... Still
Yeah?... Soooooooo... what are you telling me?
Aircraft impacted the towers --- gotcha.
Jet-Fuel fireballs erupted --- gotcha.
Fires Ensued --- gotcha.
And then they just sorta 'fell down'.... well, you 'know' what I mean...
End of class now kiddies, everyone go on home and watch Cap't Kangaroo.
Well, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't 'wash' for me.
How could those combination of factors lead to GLOBAL Disproportionate Progressive Collapse? I can well understand these combination of factors leading UP TO a localized collapse... happens all the time in major fires... but I have seen absolutely NO evidence at all that local collapses lead invariably to global collapses.
And that (in my opinion) is the new fairy tale which NIST is trying to sell.
QUOTE
SHUT UP & SIT DOWN, Soldier !!!
We don't have time to explain the most unique engineering phenomenom to have happened since the biblical days of jerico. That topic is off-grounds... well, er... ummmm, ah ---
we ran out of money ---
We don't have time to explain the most unique engineering phenomenom to have happened since the biblical days of jerico. That topic is off-grounds... well, er... ummmm, ah ---
we ran out of money ---
(but investigating a BJ is worth twice as much ???). ...
'Luke... come away from the dark side'
"Beyond a reasonable doubt"....
I guess it is....
Or has been...
a long time...
I would start the investigation here.
That's why their doubting ain't been reasonable....
NOROMS
I guess it is....
Or has been...
a long time...
I would start the investigation here.
That's why their doubting ain't been reasonable....
NOROMS
QUOTE
by arthur
Do you think the AMOUNT of High Explosives would matter? Would the blast front be moving at the same speed 100 feet away from a 1/4 stick of dynamite vs a 1/4 ton of dynamite?
Hint (no)
Do you think the AMOUNT of High Explosives would matter? Would the blast front be moving at the same speed 100 feet away from a 1/4 stick of dynamite vs a 1/4 ton of dynamite?
Hint (no)
I certainly would think that the amount of explosives would matter.
Kindly refresh my memory where I have suggested either of the above postulations. I don't recall stating that 1/4 ton of explosives would be required to set off the 'squibs' (that I have seen evidence of)?
It is pretty difficult to do empirical calculations from what we know, but from reading up on METC ... ( http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...4&RS=PN/6766744 ), and thermobaric weapons... this whole story is starting to make much more sense.
2 years ago I had no inkling whatsoever that these incendiary weapons existed. Now they are starting to explain some of the questions which I previously held.
I have seen the obfuscators quickly trying to lead away from from the post made by reasonwhy regarding the 'smoking-gun' melting of columns. The 'original theory' from the gravity-driven collapse supporters...
Yeah... the columns just melted... that's it.
Look again...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/thermite.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite03.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thernite04.jpg
Any questions?...
No sir, IMHO, that's not some computer melting there... Them 'drips' are coming from the ceiling on that floor (and unless I am mistaken ... they didn't attach the computers to the ceilings).
I have no doubt that the NIST library is well worth $15,000. I wonder IF you came up with that, would they really release ALL they have access to ???
I guarantee ...(when I sell the $50,000 dollars worth of hardware I have erected to sell clicks on my website)... I'm going to buy a triplicate copy of that library.
More to come... I am sure.
How's the investigation coming, 'Inspector Clouseau'... ?
Thanks, reasonwhy.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 05:34 PM)
Regarding your statements that people who have not read the NIST report are somehow 'missing' something, I think you place far too much importance on the 'Final Report'. I don't see that they have addressed the #1 objective which was to define HOW the towers fell. They point blank tell you that they will NOT fulfill this objective.
It is a nice report if you want all the elaborate details of how fires react in building environments. I found all the research which this led to, quite interesting.
They did an excellent job of explaining every last detail of aircraft vs building structures and how these things interact. I was compelled to look into this deeply.
Nevertheless all of these 'things' can be researched in much greater depth outside of the NIST proclamation.
The problem I found with it, was that... they didn't tell me what I want to know ...(and which they originally promised was their # 1 objective)!.
The physics related to fire-engineering has been amply posted on this board. If you have done your homework and researched all the links posted, (even if you knew nothing about fire-engineering when you arrived here), you must surely know NOW.... how fire behaves. It has been a great learning experience from my perspective and I thank all who have posted relevant links in this area (from both perspectives).
Now while all that fire-talk, and aircraft talk, and expending great energies to make us all aware of the itty-bitty details on the mettalurgical and structural strengths of the steel...
(which I found quite interesting in comparison with reinforced composites chemistry and the mechanical properties similarities and differences)... Still
Yeah?... Soooooooo... what are you telling me?
Aircraft impacted the towers --- gotcha.
Jet-Fuel fireballs erupted --- gotcha.
Fires Ensued --- gotcha.
Well, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't 'wash' for me.
How could those combination of factors lead to GLOBAL Disproportionate Progressive Collapse? I can well understand these combination of factors leading UP TO a localized collapse... happens all the time in major fires... but I have seen absolutely NO evidence at all that local collapses lead invariably to global collapses.
And that (in my opinion) is the new fairy tale which NIST is trying to sell.
Well, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't 'wash' for me.
How could those combination of factors lead to GLOBAL Disproportionate Progressive Collapse? I can well understand these combination of factors leading UP TO a localized collapse... happens all the time in major fires... but I have seen absolutely NO evidence at all that local collapses lead invariably to global collapses.
And that (in my opinion) is the new fairy tale which NIST is trying to sell.
SHUT UP & SIT DOWN, Soldier !!!
We don't have time to explain the most unique engineering phenomenom to have happened since the biblical days of jerico. That topic is off-grounds... well, er... ummmm, ah ---
we ran out of money ---
(but investigating a BJ is worth twice as much ???). ...
'Luke... come away from the dark side'
How long did it take everyone to spot the FOXX LIE?
I know a LOT of you are getting REAL good at it. With any luck, the FOXX LIE will soon be extinct in these parts as it HATES to be seen in the open.
The "FOXX LIE" is a PEST and is in no way endangered. That's because they are pretty good at HIDING and use Camouflage to avoid detection.
While usually small the "FOXX LIE" has been known to create great damage to its preferred habitat, the TRUTH.
So around here we try to stomp them out whenever they are spotted.
To help spot the "FOXX LIE" notice they will often hide amongst a lot of fluff, so as to be inconspicuous.
In this latest example I have changed the color of the fluff so it will stand out.
Do you see it now?
If you haven't spotted it yet, you probably aren't really looking too hard, which is understandable, if you've seen one FOXX LIE, you've pretty much seen em all.
But for those who aren't sure, I've highlighted the Actual FOXX LIE below.
How could those combination of factors lead to GLOBAL Disproportionate Progressive Collapse? I can well understand these combination of factors leading UP TO a localized collapse... happens all the time in major fires... but I have seen absolutely NO evidence at all that local collapses lead invariably to global collapses.
Cute isn't he?
How can you tell its a TRUE FOXX LIE?
Because these COMBINATION OF FACTORS have NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.
Arthur
I certainly would think that the amount of explosives would matter.
Kindly refresh my memory where I have suggested either of the above postulations. I don't recall stating that 1/4 ton of explosives would be required to set off the 'squibs' (that I have seen evidence of)?
Well, SQUIBS, as I've pointed out MANY times don't do squat. Its the High Explosives that you stick the squib (Aka - BLASTING CAP) in that does the damage.
What you said was:
I certainly would think that the amount of explosives would matter.
Kindly refresh my memory where I have suggested either of the above postulations. I don't recall stating that 1/4 ton of explosives would be required to set off the 'squibs' (that I have seen evidence of)?
Well, SQUIBS, as I've pointed out MANY times don't do squat. Its the High Explosives that you stick the squib (Aka - BLASTING CAP) in that does the damage.
What you said was:
By the time the explosive force had travelled from the core to the opening it certainly wouldn't be travelling at supersonic speed
So my point is YOU DON'T KNOW THAT UNLESS YOU KNOW HOW MUCH EXPLOSIVES WERE USED.
Which apparently you NOW agree with.
But Squibs won't cut the columns, it takes a LOT of High Explosives to do that.
And if you set off a lot of High Explosives, then YES the blast front will still be supersonic at a distance of 100 ft.
Arthur
I would suggest ALL who have signed 'non-disclosure agreements' with NIST to disregard such agreements, and to post evidence from their own files.
Any 'Non-disclosure' agreement signed by NIST are for the PROVIDER'S protection.
NIST signs the agreement to NOT DISCLOSE copyrighted material provided to it without the owners permission.
This protects the owner's copyright status.
There is NO AGREEMENT for material PROVIDED TO NIST that prevents the original owner from doing what ever they want to with the material.
Arthur
I certainly would think that the amount of explosives would matter.
Kindly refresh my memory where I have suggested either of the above postulations. I don't recall stating that 1/4 ton of explosives would be required to set off the 'squibs' (that I have seen evidence of)?
It is pretty difficult to do empirical calculations from what we know, but from reading up on METC ... ( http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...4&RS=PN/6766744 ), and thermobaric weapons... this whole story is starting to make much more sense.
2 years ago I had no inkling whatsoever that these incendiary weapons existed. Now they are starting to explain some of the questions which I previously held.
I have seen the obfuscators quickly trying to lead away from from the post made by reasonwhy regarding the 'smoking-gun' melting of columns. The 'original theory' from the gravity-driven collapse supporters...
Yeah... the columns just melted... that's it.
Look again...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/thermite.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite03.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thernite04.jpg
Any questions?...
No sir, IMHO, that's not some computer melting there... Them 'drips' are coming from the ceiling on that floor (and unless I am mistaken ... they didn't attach the computers to the ceilings).
I have no doubt that the NIST library is well worth $15,000. I wonder IF you came up with that, would they really release ALL they have access to ???
I guarantee ...(when I sell the $50,000 dollars worth of hardware I have erected to sell clicks on my website)... I'm going to buy a triplicate copy of that library.
More to come... I am sure.
How's the investigation coming, 'Inspector Clouseau'... ?
Thanks, reasonwhy.
You seem to be trying to avoid addressing the full ramifications of my post ?
Ehhhh ???
Obviously you have never signed a non-disclosure agreement in your life... have you, arthur?
I am currently sitting on a number of non-disclosure agreements.
Please don't try to tell me HOW they work. Once I sign that agreement, even I legally can not publicize the information (apart from signed agreements between BOTH parties).
I am aware of some of the latest advances in marine design, but if I were to publicize that info (apart from the agreement from those who I have signed such agreements with)... I could be held 'liable'... even IF the 'proprietary design rights' belong to me.
I try to be very careful when it comes to signing non-disclosure agreements.
Nevertheless, there are always 'ways' around the 'rules'...
The 'Fair Use Notice' is one which could be tested with regard WTC issues... (should issues come to court).
Cheers
Ehhhh ???
Obviously you have never signed a non-disclosure agreement in your life... have you, arthur?
I am currently sitting on a number of non-disclosure agreements.
Please don't try to tell me HOW they work. Once I sign that agreement, even I legally can not publicize the information (apart from signed agreements between BOTH parties).
I am aware of some of the latest advances in marine design, but if I were to publicize that info (apart from the agreement from those who I have signed such agreements with)... I could be held 'liable'... even IF the 'proprietary design rights' belong to me.
I try to be very careful when it comes to signing non-disclosure agreements.
Nevertheless, there are always 'ways' around the 'rules'...
The 'Fair Use Notice' is one which could be tested with regard WTC issues... (should issues come to court).
Cheers
I've signed a bunch of them.
They are not ALL Bi-Lateral agreements.
They can also be used to share copyrighted material with someone but not give up rights to later sell that material.
Its called protecting your copyright.
When you first mentioned this I went to the NIST site and found their NDA agreement.
They don't prohibit the person providing the material from disclosing it.
Arthur
Ehhhh ???
Obviously you have never signed a non-disclosure agreement in your life... have you, arthur?
I am currently sitting on a number of non-disclosure agreements.
Please don't try to tell me HOW they work. Once I sign that agreement, even I legally can not publicize the information (apart from signed agreements between BOTH parties).
I am aware of some of the latest advances in marine design, but if I were to publicize that info (apart from the agreement from those who I have signed such agreements with)... I could be held 'liable'... even IF the 'proprietary design rights' belong to me.
I try to be very careful when it comes to signing non-disclosure agreements.
Nevertheless, there are always 'ways' around the 'rules'...
The 'Fair Use Notice' is one which could be tested with regard WTC issues... (should issues come to court).
Cheers
I've signed a bunch of them.
They are not ALL Bi-Lateral agreements.
They can also be used to share copyrighted material with someone but not give up rights to later sell that material.
Its called protecting your copyright.
When you first mentioned this I went to the NIST site and found their NDA agreement.
They don't prohibit the person providing the material from disclosing it.
Arthur
Well... you are wrong, sir, but...
Great... and IF THAT were true...
I once again urge ALL who have signed non-disclosure agreements with NIST to ignore such agreements, and start publishing your files. Why should NIST ask for 15,000 to show us all that 'you' have provided?
Arthur agrees... you are under NO legal obligation to keep your files OUT of the public domain.
I think we may be seeing the 'tip-of-the-iceberg' here...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
Manyana...
It is a nice report if you want all the elaborate details of how fires react in building environments. I found all the research which this led to, quite interesting.
They did an excellent job of explaining every last detail of aircraft vs building structures and how these things interact. I was compelled to look into this deeply.
Nevertheless all of these 'things' can be researched in much greater depth outside of the NIST proclamation.
The problem I found with it, was that... they didn't tell me what I want to know ...(and which they originally promised was their # 1 objective)!.
The physics related to fire-engineering has been amply posted on this board. If you have done your homework and researched all the links posted, (even if you knew nothing about fire-engineering when you arrived here), you must surely know NOW.... how fire behaves. It has been a great learning experience from my perspective and I thank all who have posted relevant links in this area (from both perspectives).
Now while all that fire-talk, and aircraft talk, and expending great energies to make us all aware of the itty-bitty details on the mettalurgical and structural strengths of the steel...
(which I found quite interesting in comparison with reinforced composites chemistry and the mechanical properties similarities and differences)... Still
Yeah?... Soooooooo... what are you telling me?
Aircraft impacted the towers --- gotcha.
Jet-Fuel fireballs erupted --- gotcha.
Fires Ensued --- gotcha.
QUOTE
And then they just sorta 'fell down'.... well, you 'know' what I mean...
End of class now kiddies, everyone go on home and watch Cap't Kangaroo.]
End of class now kiddies, everyone go on home and watch Cap't Kangaroo.]
Well, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't 'wash' for me.
How could those combination of factors lead to GLOBAL Disproportionate Progressive Collapse? I can well understand these combination of factors leading UP TO a localized collapse... happens all the time in major fires... but I have seen absolutely NO evidence at all that local collapses lead invariably to global collapses.
And that (in my opinion) is the new fairy tale which NIST is trying to sell.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And then they just sorta 'fell down'.... well, you 'know' what I mean... End of class now kiddies, everyone go on home and watch Cap't Kangaroo.] |
Well, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't 'wash' for me.
How could those combination of factors lead to GLOBAL Disproportionate Progressive Collapse? I can well understand these combination of factors leading UP TO a localized collapse... happens all the time in major fires... but I have seen absolutely NO evidence at all that local collapses lead invariably to global collapses.
And that (in my opinion) is the new fairy tale which NIST is trying to sell.
SHUT UP & SIT DOWN, Soldier !!!
We don't have time to explain the most unique engineering phenomenom to have happened since the biblical days of jerico. That topic is off-grounds... well, er... ummmm, ah ---
we ran out of money ---
(but investigating a BJ is worth twice as much ???). ...
'Luke... come away from the dark side'
How long did it take everyone to spot the FOXX LIE?
I know a LOT of you are getting REAL good at it. With any luck, the FOXX LIE will soon be extinct in these parts as it HATES to be seen in the open.
The "FOXX LIE" is a PEST and is in no way endangered. That's because they are pretty good at HIDING and use Camouflage to avoid detection.
While usually small the "FOXX LIE" has been known to create great damage to its preferred habitat, the TRUTH.
So around here we try to stomp them out whenever they are spotted.
To help spot the "FOXX LIE" notice they will often hide amongst a lot of fluff, so as to be inconspicuous.
In this latest example I have changed the color of the fluff so it will stand out.
Do you see it now?
If you haven't spotted it yet, you probably aren't really looking too hard, which is understandable, if you've seen one FOXX LIE, you've pretty much seen em all.
But for those who aren't sure, I've highlighted the Actual FOXX LIE below.
How could those combination of factors lead to GLOBAL Disproportionate Progressive Collapse? I can well understand these combination of factors leading UP TO a localized collapse... happens all the time in major fires... but I have seen absolutely NO evidence at all that local collapses lead invariably to global collapses.
Cute isn't he?
How can you tell its a TRUE FOXX LIE?
Because these COMBINATION OF FACTORS have NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.
Arthur
"COMBINATION OF FACTORS have NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE"... except twice (+one) times that day....
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 06:18 PM)
QUOTE
by arthur
Do you think the AMOUNT of High Explosives would matter? Would the blast front be moving at the same speed 100 feet away from a 1/4 stick of dynamite vs a 1/4 ton of dynamite?
Hint (no)
Do you think the AMOUNT of High Explosives would matter? Would the blast front be moving at the same speed 100 feet away from a 1/4 stick of dynamite vs a 1/4 ton of dynamite?
Hint (no)
I certainly would think that the amount of explosives would matter.
Kindly refresh my memory where I have suggested either of the above postulations. I don't recall stating that 1/4 ton of explosives would be required to set off the 'squibs' (that I have seen evidence of)?
Well, SQUIBS, as I've pointed out MANY times don't do squat. Its the High Explosives that you stick the squib (Aka - BLASTING CAP) in that does the damage.
What you said was:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by arthur Do you think the AMOUNT of High Explosives would matter? Would the blast front be moving at the same speed 100 feet away from a 1/4 stick of dynamite vs a 1/4 ton of dynamite? Hint (no) |
I certainly would think that the amount of explosives would matter.
Kindly refresh my memory where I have suggested either of the above postulations. I don't recall stating that 1/4 ton of explosives would be required to set off the 'squibs' (that I have seen evidence of)?
Well, SQUIBS, as I've pointed out MANY times don't do squat. Its the High Explosives that you stick the squib (Aka - BLASTING CAP) in that does the damage.
What you said was:
By the time the explosive force had travelled from the core to the opening it certainly wouldn't be travelling at supersonic speed
So my point is YOU DON'T KNOW THAT UNLESS YOU KNOW HOW MUCH EXPLOSIVES WERE USED.
Which apparently you NOW agree with.
But Squibs won't cut the columns, it takes a LOT of High Explosives to do that.
And if you set off a lot of High Explosives, then YES the blast front will still be supersonic at a distance of 100 ft.
Arthur
HASTA MANYANA
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Feb 25 2006, 10:54 PM)
HASTA MANYANA
HASTA LA VISTA
BTW... I would suggest ALL who have signed 'non-disclosure agreements' with NIST to disregard such agreements, and to post evidence from their own files.
Bit of a 'tricky' legal question, so you might best consult an attorney prior to breaking that 'agreement'.
There is 'Fair USE' copyright laws, which (IMHO) allows you to disregard such 'signed agreements'.
See your lawyer, and then let's see what you have.
Cheers.
HASTA LA VISTA
BTW... I would suggest ALL who have signed 'non-disclosure agreements' with NIST to disregard such agreements, and to post evidence from their own files.
Bit of a 'tricky' legal question, so you might best consult an attorney prior to breaking that 'agreement'.
There is 'Fair USE' copyright laws, which (IMHO) allows you to disregard such 'signed agreements'.
See your lawyer, and then let's see what you have.
Cheers.
High Explosives Overpressure Consequences
Scaled Distance Overpressure Consequences
(ft-kg1/3)............... PSI
3000–890 0.01–0.04 Minimum damage to glass panels
..420–200 0.1–0.2 Typical window glass breakage
..200–100 0.2–0.4 Minimum overpressure for debris and missile damage
.....82–41 0.5–1.1 Windows shattered, plaster cracked, minor building damage
.....44–32 1.0–1.5 Personnel knocked down
.....44–28 1.0–1.8 Panels of sheet metal buckled
.....44–24 1.0–2.2 Failure of wooden siding for conventional homes
.....28–20 1.8–2.9 Failure of walls constructed of concrete blocks or cinder blocks
.....20–16 2.9–4.4 Self-framing paneled buildings collapse
.....20–16 2.9–4.4 Oil storage tanks ruptured
.....16–12 4.4–7.3 Utility poles broken off
.....16–12 4.4–7.3 Serious damage to buildings with structural steel framework
.....11–10 10.2–11 Probable total destruction of most buildings
.....15–10 5.1–14 Eardrum rupture
.....14–11 5.8–8.7 Reinforced concrete structures severely damaged
.....14–11 5.8–8.7 Railroad cars overturned
...6.7–4.5 29.0–72 Lung damage
...3.8–2.7 102–218 Lethality
...2.4–1.9 290–435 Crater formation in average soil
This is the Scaled damage/consequenses chart,
Source: Kinney and Graham, 1985.
Its in feet per 1/3 kg of TNT equiv. high explosives.
Typical high explosives in use today are 1.2 to 1.3 times as strong as TNT.
This is for BLAST DAMAGE ALONE.
At short range blast damage is worse than projectile damage, as range increases the projectiles from the blast are a greater hazard.
Thus 2.2 lbs of TNT would be lethal out to 11.4 ft. and shatter glass out as far as 240 ft.
Which is why there were no HIGH EXPLOSIVE cutting charges within the WTC towers.
You have to cut AT LEAST 10 of the main columns.
Which means you would at least 100 pounds of TNT per floor (OK, this is probably way low, but look what just 100 lbs of TNT would do)
It would rupture eardrums for a radius of over 700 feet, knock people over within 1/2 a mile and shatter glass a mile away.
Didn't happen.
No HE.
Arthur
Scaled Distance Overpressure Consequences
(ft-kg1/3)............... PSI
3000–890 0.01–0.04 Minimum damage to glass panels
..420–200 0.1–0.2 Typical window glass breakage
..200–100 0.2–0.4 Minimum overpressure for debris and missile damage
.....82–41 0.5–1.1 Windows shattered, plaster cracked, minor building damage
.....44–32 1.0–1.5 Personnel knocked down
.....44–28 1.0–1.8 Panels of sheet metal buckled
.....44–24 1.0–2.2 Failure of wooden siding for conventional homes
.....28–20 1.8–2.9 Failure of walls constructed of concrete blocks or cinder blocks
.....20–16 2.9–4.4 Self-framing paneled buildings collapse
.....20–16 2.9–4.4 Oil storage tanks ruptured
.....16–12 4.4–7.3 Utility poles broken off
.....16–12 4.4–7.3 Serious damage to buildings with structural steel framework
.....11–10 10.2–11 Probable total destruction of most buildings
.....15–10 5.1–14 Eardrum rupture
.....14–11 5.8–8.7 Reinforced concrete structures severely damaged
.....14–11 5.8–8.7 Railroad cars overturned
...6.7–4.5 29.0–72 Lung damage
...3.8–2.7 102–218 Lethality
...2.4–1.9 290–435 Crater formation in average soil
This is the Scaled damage/consequenses chart,
Source: Kinney and Graham, 1985.
Its in feet per 1/3 kg of TNT equiv. high explosives.
Typical high explosives in use today are 1.2 to 1.3 times as strong as TNT.
This is for BLAST DAMAGE ALONE.
At short range blast damage is worse than projectile damage, as range increases the projectiles from the blast are a greater hazard.
Thus 2.2 lbs of TNT would be lethal out to 11.4 ft. and shatter glass out as far as 240 ft.
Which is why there were no HIGH EXPLOSIVE cutting charges within the WTC towers.
You have to cut AT LEAST 10 of the main columns.
Which means you would at least 100 pounds of TNT per floor (OK, this is probably way low, but look what just 100 lbs of TNT would do)
It would rupture eardrums for a radius of over 700 feet, knock people over within 1/2 a mile and shatter glass a mile away.
Didn't happen.
No HE.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 07:03 PM)
I would suggest ALL who have signed 'non-disclosure agreements' with NIST to disregard such agreements, and to post evidence from their own files.
Any 'Non-disclosure' agreement signed by NIST are for the PROVIDER'S protection.
NIST signs the agreement to NOT DISCLOSE copyrighted material provided to it without the owners permission.
This protects the owner's copyright status.
There is NO AGREEMENT for material PROVIDED TO NIST that prevents the original owner from doing what ever they want to with the material.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 10:18 PM)
QUOTE
by arthur
Do you think the AMOUNT of High Explosives would matter? Would the blast front be moving at the same speed 100 feet away from a 1/4 stick of dynamite vs a 1/4 ton of dynamite?
Hint (no)
Do you think the AMOUNT of High Explosives would matter? Would the blast front be moving at the same speed 100 feet away from a 1/4 stick of dynamite vs a 1/4 ton of dynamite?
Hint (no)
I certainly would think that the amount of explosives would matter.
Kindly refresh my memory where I have suggested either of the above postulations. I don't recall stating that 1/4 ton of explosives would be required to set off the 'squibs' (that I have seen evidence of)?
It is pretty difficult to do empirical calculations from what we know, but from reading up on METC ... ( http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...4&RS=PN/6766744 ), and thermobaric weapons... this whole story is starting to make much more sense.
2 years ago I had no inkling whatsoever that these incendiary weapons existed. Now they are starting to explain some of the questions which I previously held.
I have seen the obfuscators quickly trying to lead away from from the post made by reasonwhy regarding the 'smoking-gun' melting of columns. The 'original theory' from the gravity-driven collapse supporters...
Yeah... the columns just melted... that's it.
Look again...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/thermite.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite03.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thernite04.jpg
Any questions?...
No sir, IMHO, that's not some computer melting there... Them 'drips' are coming from the ceiling on that floor (and unless I am mistaken ... they didn't attach the computers to the ceilings).
I have no doubt that the NIST library is well worth $15,000. I wonder IF you came up with that, would they really release ALL they have access to ???
I guarantee ...(when I sell the $50,000 dollars worth of hardware I have erected to sell clicks on my website)... I'm going to buy a triplicate copy of that library.
More to come... I am sure.
How's the investigation coming, 'Inspector Clouseau'... ?
Thanks, reasonwhy.
You seem to be trying to avoid addressing the full ramifications of my post ?
QUOTE
by arthur
There is NO AGREEMENT for material PROVIDED TO NIST that prevents the original owner from doing what ever they want to with the material.
There is NO AGREEMENT for material PROVIDED TO NIST that prevents the original owner from doing what ever they want to with the material.
Ehhhh ???
Obviously you have never signed a non-disclosure agreement in your life... have you, arthur?
I am currently sitting on a number of non-disclosure agreements.
Please don't try to tell me HOW they work. Once I sign that agreement, even I legally can not publicize the information (apart from signed agreements between BOTH parties).
I am aware of some of the latest advances in marine design, but if I were to publicize that info (apart from the agreement from those who I have signed such agreements with)... I could be held 'liable'... even IF the 'proprietary design rights' belong to me.
I try to be very careful when it comes to signing non-disclosure agreements.
Nevertheless, there are always 'ways' around the 'rules'...
The 'Fair Use Notice' is one which could be tested with regard WTC issues... (should issues come to court).
Cheers
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 09:05 PM)
QUOTE
by arthur
There is NO AGREEMENT for material PROVIDED TO NIST that prevents the original owner from doing what ever they want to with the material.
There is NO AGREEMENT for material PROVIDED TO NIST that prevents the original owner from doing what ever they want to with the material.
Ehhhh ???
Obviously you have never signed a non-disclosure agreement in your life... have you, arthur?
I am currently sitting on a number of non-disclosure agreements.
Please don't try to tell me HOW they work. Once I sign that agreement, even I legally can not publicize the information (apart from signed agreements between BOTH parties).
I am aware of some of the latest advances in marine design, but if I were to publicize that info (apart from the agreement from those who I have signed such agreements with)... I could be held 'liable'... even IF the 'proprietary design rights' belong to me.
I try to be very careful when it comes to signing non-disclosure agreements.
Nevertheless, there are always 'ways' around the 'rules'...
The 'Fair Use Notice' is one which could be tested with regard WTC issues... (should issues come to court).
Cheers
I've signed a bunch of them.
They are not ALL Bi-Lateral agreements.
They can also be used to share copyrighted material with someone but not give up rights to later sell that material.
Its called protecting your copyright.
When you first mentioned this I went to the NIST site and found their NDA agreement.
They don't prohibit the person providing the material from disclosing it.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 26 2006, 01:18 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 09:05 PM)
QUOTE
by arthur
There is NO AGREEMENT for material PROVIDED TO NIST that prevents the original owner from doing what ever they want to with the material.
There is NO AGREEMENT for material PROVIDED TO NIST that prevents the original owner from doing what ever they want to with the material.
Ehhhh ???
Obviously you have never signed a non-disclosure agreement in your life... have you, arthur?
I am currently sitting on a number of non-disclosure agreements.
Please don't try to tell me HOW they work. Once I sign that agreement, even I legally can not publicize the information (apart from signed agreements between BOTH parties).
I am aware of some of the latest advances in marine design, but if I were to publicize that info (apart from the agreement from those who I have signed such agreements with)... I could be held 'liable'... even IF the 'proprietary design rights' belong to me.
I try to be very careful when it comes to signing non-disclosure agreements.
Nevertheless, there are always 'ways' around the 'rules'...
The 'Fair Use Notice' is one which could be tested with regard WTC issues... (should issues come to court).
Cheers
I've signed a bunch of them.
They are not ALL Bi-Lateral agreements.
They can also be used to share copyrighted material with someone but not give up rights to later sell that material.
Its called protecting your copyright.
When you first mentioned this I went to the NIST site and found their NDA agreement.
They don't prohibit the person providing the material from disclosing it.
Arthur
Well... you are wrong, sir, but...
Great... and IF THAT were true...
I once again urge ALL who have signed non-disclosure agreements with NIST to ignore such agreements, and start publishing your files. Why should NIST ask for 15,000 to show us all that 'you' have provided?
Arthur agrees... you are under NO legal obligation to keep your files OUT of the public domain.
I think we may be seeing the 'tip-of-the-iceberg' here...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
Manyana...
I urge every "Scholar" who believe in CD to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 25 2006, 05:23 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 25 2006, 04:37 PM)
6 months and over 400 pages and not one physics member converted to the conspiracy theory side. In fact they only managed to inflame the members are garner their wrath. AMASING!
nice appeal to the 'peer pressure', aka, 'the bandwagon appeal'.
much the same as rove and coulter ete al. have made being a democrat into the equivalent of being , 'worse than terrorists', 'panty waists', and 'treasonous' with strong insinuations that they should leave the country if they don't like the neocon way, because they are 'unamerican'.
such is the power of words.
and so the rhetorical meme wars continue, with common sense being some kind of weird oxy MORON.
i suggest you reconnect your severed corpus colossum, commie scents.
And what have YOU used EXCLUSIVELY on this thread, newton? Nothing BUT 'words' arranged into 'witty' (haha) DRIVEL that does NOT compare well at all with the reasoned, consistent, PHYSICS arguments coming from the 'other' side of the debate (haha, what 'debate', no contest' would be a more accurate descriprion...and you are the cheerleader for "FOXX"s debacle and humiliation).
Perhaps YOU should get in touch once more with your INTEGRITY and YOUR (haha) BRAIN. In short, ensure that, whatever passes for your brain, is 'engaged' before putting your mouth 'in gear', heh?
Stop pussy farting around and produce PHYSICS SENSE instead of 'useless newton' non-sense. Pathetic, newton. Truly, you are a waste of any 'grey matter' that may have accidently fallen into your cranial wasteland, mate. Grow up and do some REAL thinking and benefitting of mankind instead of being a 'helper' to the spammer/scammer efforts of possibly terrorist money-earning sites which use people like you to make 'sucker click' money to finance their next outrage against that humanity, of which I must assume you ARE a part. Cheers, useless!
RC.
.
nice appeal to the 'peer pressure', aka, 'the bandwagon appeal'.
much the same as rove and coulter ete al. have made being a democrat into the equivalent of being , 'worse than terrorists', 'panty waists', and 'treasonous' with strong insinuations that they should leave the country if they don't like the neocon way, because they are 'unamerican'.
such is the power of words.
and so the rhetorical meme wars continue, with common sense being some kind of weird oxy MORON.
i suggest you reconnect your severed corpus colossum, commie scents.
And what have YOU used EXCLUSIVELY on this thread, newton? Nothing BUT 'words' arranged into 'witty' (haha) DRIVEL that does NOT compare well at all with the reasoned, consistent, PHYSICS arguments coming from the 'other' side of the debate (haha, what 'debate', no contest' would be a more accurate descriprion...and you are the cheerleader for "FOXX"s debacle and humiliation).
Perhaps YOU should get in touch once more with your INTEGRITY and YOUR (haha) BRAIN. In short, ensure that, whatever passes for your brain, is 'engaged' before putting your mouth 'in gear', heh?
Stop pussy farting around and produce PHYSICS SENSE instead of 'useless newton' non-sense. Pathetic, newton. Truly, you are a waste of any 'grey matter' that may have accidently fallen into your cranial wasteland, mate. Grow up and do some REAL thinking and benefitting of mankind instead of being a 'helper' to the spammer/scammer efforts of possibly terrorist money-earning sites which use people like you to make 'sucker click' money to finance their next outrage against that humanity, of which I must assume you ARE a part. Cheers, useless!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 26 2006, 01:41 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 25 2006, 05:23 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 25 2006, 04:37 PM)
6 months and over 400 pages and not one physics member converted to the conspiracy theory side. In fact they only managed to inflame the members are garner their wrath. AMASING!
nice appeal to the 'peer pressure', aka, 'the bandwagon appeal'.
much the same as rove and coulter ete al. have made being a democrat into the equivalent of being , 'worse than terrorists', 'panty waists', and 'treasonous' with strong insinuations that they should leave the country if they don't like the neocon way, because they are 'unamerican'.
such is the power of words.
and so the rhetorical meme wars continue, with common sense being some kind of weird oxy MORON.
i suggest you reconnect your severed corpus colossum, commie scents.
And what have YOU used EXCLUSIVELY on this thread, newton? Nothing BUT 'words' arranged into 'witty' (haha) DRIVEL that does NOT compare well at all with the reasoned, consistent, PHYSICS arguments coming from the 'other' side of the debate (haha, what 'debate', no contest' would be a more accurate descriprion...and you are the cheerleader for "FOXX"s debacle and humiliation).
Perhaps YOU should get in touch once more with your INTEGRITY and YOUR (haha) BRAIN. In short, ensure that, whatever passes for your brain, is 'engaged' before putting your mouth 'in gear', heh?
Stop pussy farting around and produce PHYSICS SENSE instead of 'useless newton' non-sense. Pathetic, newton. Truly, you are a waste of any 'grey matter' that may have accidently fallen into your cranial wasteland, mate. Grow up and do some REAL thinking and benefitting of mankind instead of being a 'helper' to the spammer/scammer efforts of possibly terrorist money-earning sites which use people like you to make 'sucker click' money to finance their next outrage against that humanity, of which I must assume you ARE a part. Cheers, useless!
RC.
.
Notice I didn't even respond to his drivel RC. Just listen to him. He knows I'm right.
I can tell when I hit a nerve. Metamars comes out of hiding. Heh!
nice appeal to the 'peer pressure', aka, 'the bandwagon appeal'.
much the same as rove and coulter ete al. have made being a democrat into the equivalent of being , 'worse than terrorists', 'panty waists', and 'treasonous' with strong insinuations that they should leave the country if they don't like the neocon way, because they are 'unamerican'.
such is the power of words.
and so the rhetorical meme wars continue, with common sense being some kind of weird oxy MORON.
i suggest you reconnect your severed corpus colossum, commie scents.
And what have YOU used EXCLUSIVELY on this thread, newton? Nothing BUT 'words' arranged into 'witty' (haha) DRIVEL that does NOT compare well at all with the reasoned, consistent, PHYSICS arguments coming from the 'other' side of the debate (haha, what 'debate', no contest' would be a more accurate descriprion...and you are the cheerleader for "FOXX"s debacle and humiliation).
Perhaps YOU should get in touch once more with your INTEGRITY and YOUR (haha) BRAIN. In short, ensure that, whatever passes for your brain, is 'engaged' before putting your mouth 'in gear', heh?
Stop pussy farting around and produce PHYSICS SENSE instead of 'useless newton' non-sense. Pathetic, newton. Truly, you are a waste of any 'grey matter' that may have accidently fallen into your cranial wasteland, mate. Grow up and do some REAL thinking and benefitting of mankind instead of being a 'helper' to the spammer/scammer efforts of possibly terrorist money-earning sites which use people like you to make 'sucker click' money to finance their next outrage against that humanity, of which I must assume you ARE a part. Cheers, useless!
RC.
.
Notice I didn't even respond to his drivel RC. Just listen to him. He knows I'm right.
I can tell when I hit a nerve. Metamars comes out of hiding. Heh!
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 08:25 PM)
You seem to be trying to avoid addressing the full ramifications of my post ?
The full ramifications of your post.
Talk about someone with an overinflated ego.
Say this in a snooty accent, it sounds better.
ThEEE FULLLLLLLL RAMificAAAAAtionsssssss of MY post.
Foxx,
The FULL ramifications of your post is that you're an idiot who posts links that take you to a Google search screen and use an invalid security certificate while doing so.
Putz
Arthur
The full ramifications of your post.
Talk about someone with an overinflated ego.
Say this in a snooty accent, it sounds better.
ThEEE FULLLLLLLL RAMificAAAAAtionsssssss of MY post.
Foxx,
The FULL ramifications of your post is that you're an idiot who posts links that take you to a Google search screen and use an invalid security certificate while doing so.
Putz
Arthur
This is a good video of what could be the second stage of a thermobaric weapon ;“Following the initial blast is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to have a human body lifted and thrown."
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermobaric-weapon
The Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
I am sure the Official Conspiracy crowd will say it is the trusses pulling the columns in. This is the same corner that the thermite appeared to be burning.
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermobaric-weapon
The Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
I am sure the Official Conspiracy crowd will say it is the trusses pulling the columns in. This is the same corner that the thermite appeared to be burning.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 01:39 AM)
I urge every "Scholar" who believe in CD to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Ehhh??? are you serious? I should just boldly step forward like Kevin Ryan?
Give your head a shake there Scooby-Doo. It's an easy challenge to make while I sit there with a gun to my head... what do you expect me to say?...
I accuse the lawful administration of complicity in mass-murder?
Who should I report that to.... 'Fox News'... CNN ... Dod... CIA.... Secret service... Congress???
How far will I get with my expose?
It will be shut down long before it reaches your ears, and that's what you count on to protect your secrets.
Too bad for YOU, that the free internet communication network came along. Yep, you got away with it 'last time', but YOUR 'time' is coming to an end. I certainly don't expect to see it tomorrow. Maybe I won't see it in my lifetime, but the Truth is coming to be exposed. Try to get on the right side of the ledger before you get exposed.
Ehhh??? are you serious? I should just boldly step forward like Kevin Ryan?
Give your head a shake there Scooby-Doo. It's an easy challenge to make while I sit there with a gun to my head... what do you expect me to say?...
I accuse the lawful administration of complicity in mass-murder?
Who should I report that to.... 'Fox News'... CNN ... Dod... CIA.... Secret service... Congress???
How far will I get with my expose?
It will be shut down long before it reaches your ears, and that's what you count on to protect your secrets.
Too bad for YOU, that the free internet communication network came along. Yep, you got away with it 'last time', but YOUR 'time' is coming to an end. I certainly don't expect to see it tomorrow. Maybe I won't see it in my lifetime, but the Truth is coming to be exposed. Try to get on the right side of the ledger before you get exposed.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 26 2006, 02:21 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 01:39 AM)
I urge every "Scholar" who believe in CD to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Ehhh??? are you serious? I should just boldly step forward like Kevin Ryan?
Give your head a shake there Scooby-Doo. It's an easy challenge to make while I sit there with a gun to my head... what do you expect me to say?...
I accuse the lawful administration of complicity in mass-murder?
Who should I report that to.... 'Fox News'... CNN ... Dod... CIA.... Secret service... Congress???
How far will I get with my expose?
It will be shut down long before it reaches your ears, and that's what you count on to protect your secrets.
Too bad for YOU, that the free internet communication network came along. Yep, you got away with it 'last time', but YOUR 'time' is coming to an end. I certainly don't expect to see it tomorrow. Maybe I won't see it in my lifetime, but the Truth is coming to be exposed. Try to get on the right side of the ledger before you get exposed.
OBFUSCATION!!! HAHAHA!
I certainly would think that the amount of explosives would matter.
Kindly refresh my memory where I have suggested either of the above postulations. I don't recall stating that 1/4 ton of explosives would be required to set off the 'squibs' (that I have seen evidence of)?
It is pretty difficult to do empirical calculations from what we know, but from reading up on METC ... ( http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...4&RS=PN/6766744 ), and thermobaric weapons... this whole story is starting to make much more sense.
2 years ago I had no inkling whatsoever that these incendiary weapons existed. Now they are starting to explain some of the questions which I previously held.
I have seen the obfuscators quickly trying to lead away from from the post made by reasonwhy regarding the 'smoking-gun' melting of columns. The 'original theory' from the gravity-driven collapse supporters...
Yeah... the columns just melted... that's it.
Look again...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/thermite.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite03.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thernite04.jpg
Any questions?...
No sir, IMHO, that's not some computer melting there... Them 'drips' are coming from the ceiling on that floor (and unless I am mistaken ... they didn't attach the computers to the ceilings).
I have no doubt that the NIST library is well worth $15,000. I wonder IF you came up with that, would they really release ALL they have access to ???
I guarantee ...(when I sell the $50,000 dollars worth of hardware I have erected to sell clicks on my website)... I'm going to buy a triplicate copy of that library.
More to come... I am sure.
How's the investigation coming, 'Inspector Clouseau'... ?
Thanks, reasonwhy.
You seem to be trying to avoid addressing the full ramifications of my post ?
Hey "FOXX", do you even KNOW what you are posting now?....or is it some 'animal instinct' that is driving you more and more to 'chew off your own leg' in an attempt to get out of the "FOXX"TRAP you've constructed and set-off all by yourself?
Do those look like the 'little' and/or 'cool' fires you insisted upon when you first came here?
Does the 'floor' at one level constitute 'ceiling' of the one above?
Does the multi-level demolition of the floors/ceilings caused BY HUGE PLANES crashing and EXPLODING in them cause any CONVECTION and up/down drafts into the building throughout DURING THE HOUR etc OF RAGING FIRES?
Do you think that all that PLASTIC AND ALUMINIUM in the planes and the offices would 'melt and run' all over the place as they BURN in both the perimeter areas and the core areas?
Do you realise that NO COLUMNS NEEDED TO MELT to result in what was seen?...and that mere HEAT-SOFTENING/WEAKENING, DIFFERENTIAL-HEATING/COOLING DISTORTIONS and OVER-DESIGN STATIC/DYNAMIC and CHAOTIC STRESSES etc were SUFFICIENT considering the unusual designs and EXTREME non-designed ASSAULTS FROM FIRE AND PLANE DISLODGING /COMPROMISING FLOOR/TRUSSES/FIREPROOFING?
And do you think that since the INITIAL PLANE EXPLOSIONS, combined with the UNBURNT JETFUEL BLAST-DRIVEN INTO THE SHAFTS/PLENUMS etc did BEHAVE EXACTLY AS YOU DESCRIBE 'THERMOBARIC WEAPONS' WOULD BEHAVE, is ALREADY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS?
Really, mate....you cannot go on like a demented "FOXX" chewing at his leg while throwing out all these inconsistent attempts at reasoned arguments. Obviously, like your panic chewing, these prejudiced 'throwaways' at any kind of sense are getting tragically pathetic.
HOW ABOUT YOU GO BACK TO "SQUARE ONE" AND REFORMULATE YOUR 'OBJECTIONS/CONCERNS' IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT YOU HAVE (I HOPE) LEARNED DURING YOUR DEBACLE TO DATE? Do it category by category using logic and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, OPEN-MINDED FAIRNESS AND PHYSICS. Then you can start ANOTHER 4 YRS of drumming up 'phantom controversy' to assist your mates running those terrorist-front sites wanting to finance their next outrage. Perhaps by then you will have been replaced by someone more astute or someone even more impotent...newton perhaps?...or JamesX...or (insert other clown here-----gee, I've had a few laughs catching up on all the things people here have said about you lot! What a read...couldn't stop laughing, hehehe...but well deserved, I think, even if just for wasting the time of good and intelligent people while you make a mockery of the terms 'fair and honest debate' and 'scientific method' and 'non-prejudicial' etc).
RC.
.
Ehhh??? are you serious? I should just boldly step forward like Kevin Ryan?
Give your head a shake there Scooby-Doo. It's an easy challenge to make while I sit there with a gun to my head... what do you expect me to say?...
I accuse the lawful administration of complicity in mass-murder?
Who should I report that to.... 'Fox News'... CNN ... Dod... CIA.... Secret service... Congress???
How far will I get with my expose?
It will be shut down long before it reaches your ears, and that's what you count on to protect your secrets.
Too bad for YOU, that the free internet communication network came along. Yep, you got away with it 'last time', but YOUR 'time' is coming to an end. I certainly don't expect to see it tomorrow. Maybe I won't see it in my lifetime, but the Truth is coming to be exposed. Try to get on the right side of the ledger before you get exposed.
OBFUSCATION!!! HAHAHA!
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 26 2006, 02:14 AM)
This is a good video of what could be the second stage of a thermobaric weapons ;“Following the initial blast is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to have a human body lifted and thrown.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermobaric-weapon
The Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
It's suposed to blow out core columns. Not push humans around.
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermobaric-weapon
The Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
It's suposed to blow out core columns. Not push humans around.
Yeah, they got Stephen Jones on the RACK as we speak.
What a moron.
Besides FOXX, they were looking for SCHOLARS.
Arthur
What a moron.
Besides FOXX, they were looking for SCHOLARS.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 01:39 AM)
I urge every "Scholar" who believe in CD to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 26 2006, 12:25 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 25 2006, 10:18 PM)
QUOTE
by arthur
Do you think the AMOUNT of High Explosives would matter? Would the blast front be moving at the same speed 100 feet away from a 1/4 stick of dynamite vs a 1/4 ton of dynamite?
Hint (no)
Do you think the AMOUNT of High Explosives would matter? Would the blast front be moving at the same speed 100 feet away from a 1/4 stick of dynamite vs a 1/4 ton of dynamite?
Hint (no)
I certainly would think that the amount of explosives would matter.
Kindly refresh my memory where I have suggested either of the above postulations. I don't recall stating that 1/4 ton of explosives would be required to set off the 'squibs' (that I have seen evidence of)?
It is pretty difficult to do empirical calculations from what we know, but from reading up on METC ... ( http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...4&RS=PN/6766744 ), and thermobaric weapons... this whole story is starting to make much more sense.
2 years ago I had no inkling whatsoever that these incendiary weapons existed. Now they are starting to explain some of the questions which I previously held.
I have seen the obfuscators quickly trying to lead away from from the post made by reasonwhy regarding the 'smoking-gun' melting of columns. The 'original theory' from the gravity-driven collapse supporters...
Yeah... the columns just melted... that's it.
Look again...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/thermite.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite03.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thernite04.jpg
Any questions?...
No sir, IMHO, that's not some computer melting there... Them 'drips' are coming from the ceiling on that floor (and unless I am mistaken ... they didn't attach the computers to the ceilings).
I have no doubt that the NIST library is well worth $15,000. I wonder IF you came up with that, would they really release ALL they have access to ???
I guarantee ...(when I sell the $50,000 dollars worth of hardware I have erected to sell clicks on my website)... I'm going to buy a triplicate copy of that library.
More to come... I am sure.
How's the investigation coming, 'Inspector Clouseau'... ?
Thanks, reasonwhy.
You seem to be trying to avoid addressing the full ramifications of my post ?
Hey "FOXX", do you even KNOW what you are posting now?....or is it some 'animal instinct' that is driving you more and more to 'chew off your own leg' in an attempt to get out of the "FOXX"TRAP you've constructed and set-off all by yourself?
Do those look like the 'little' and/or 'cool' fires you insisted upon when you first came here?
Does the 'floor' at one level constitute 'ceiling' of the one above?
Does the multi-level demolition of the floors/ceilings caused BY HUGE PLANES crashing and EXPLODING in them cause any CONVECTION and up/down drafts into the building throughout DURING THE HOUR etc OF RAGING FIRES?
Do you think that all that PLASTIC AND ALUMINIUM in the planes and the offices would 'melt and run' all over the place as they BURN in both the perimeter areas and the core areas?
Do you realise that NO COLUMNS NEEDED TO MELT to result in what was seen?...and that mere HEAT-SOFTENING/WEAKENING, DIFFERENTIAL-HEATING/COOLING DISTORTIONS and OVER-DESIGN STATIC/DYNAMIC and CHAOTIC STRESSES etc were SUFFICIENT considering the unusual designs and EXTREME non-designed ASSAULTS FROM FIRE AND PLANE DISLODGING /COMPROMISING FLOOR/TRUSSES/FIREPROOFING?
And do you think that since the INITIAL PLANE EXPLOSIONS, combined with the UNBURNT JETFUEL BLAST-DRIVEN INTO THE SHAFTS/PLENUMS etc did BEHAVE EXACTLY AS YOU DESCRIBE 'THERMOBARIC WEAPONS' WOULD BEHAVE, is ALREADY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS?
Really, mate....you cannot go on like a demented "FOXX" chewing at his leg while throwing out all these inconsistent attempts at reasoned arguments. Obviously, like your panic chewing, these prejudiced 'throwaways' at any kind of sense are getting tragically pathetic.
HOW ABOUT YOU GO BACK TO "SQUARE ONE" AND REFORMULATE YOUR 'OBJECTIONS/CONCERNS' IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT YOU HAVE (I HOPE) LEARNED DURING YOUR DEBACLE TO DATE? Do it category by category using logic and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, OPEN-MINDED FAIRNESS AND PHYSICS. Then you can start ANOTHER 4 YRS of drumming up 'phantom controversy' to assist your mates running those terrorist-front sites wanting to finance their next outrage. Perhaps by then you will have been replaced by someone more astute or someone even more impotent...newton perhaps?...or JamesX...or (insert other clown here-----gee, I've had a few laughs catching up on all the things people here have said about you lot! What a read...couldn't stop laughing, hehehe...but well deserved, I think, even if just for wasting the time of good and intelligent people while you make a mockery of the terms 'fair and honest debate' and 'scientific method' and 'non-prejudicial' etc).
RC.
.
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 10:29 PM)
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
Exactly what evidence were you looking for?
If you READ the friggin reports you would find an amazing amount of it is presented already.
Arthur
Exactly what evidence were you looking for?
If you READ the friggin reports you would find an amazing amount of it is presented already.
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 02:29 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 01:39 AM)
I urge every "Scholar" who believe in CD to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
You should publish before all the evidence that NIST had in its hands is in yours. Since your side says it's obvious with the evidence you have now... Heh!
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
You should publish before all the evidence that NIST had in its hands is in yours. Since your side says it's obvious with the evidence you have now... Heh!
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 26 2006, 02:14 AM)
This is a good video of what could be the second stage of a thermobaric weapons ;“Following the initial blast is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to have a human body lifted and thrown.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermobaric-weapon
The Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
Hmmmm... to have human bodies lifted and 'thrown' about. ???
Sounds familiar to me.
Need we really post those links again? The obfuscators are like drowning men seeking their last gasps of air.
Let's see if they can rescucitate themselves (without resorting to to the usual bull) ?
Edit to add --- Nope, guess not... I see a flurry of obfuscations.
I see the CAPITALIZER has SIGNED IN AGAIN... I am thoroughly IMPRESSED with THIS NONSENSICAL BS which PROOVES BEYOND DOUBT that...
... I'm not quite sure what he said, (breezing over the obfuscations as I did)
Reality Check... sorry, but you are so far from reality, that I'm not wasting efforts to refute your CAPITALIZED BOOGIE-WOOGIE.
You post total nonsense emphasized with CAPITALS, and I (for one) am not impressed with your 'knowledge' one little bit.
Maybe you should take 'Schneibys' hand and lead him back to the Quantum Physics discussion (which has nothing to do with the Basic Physics we are discussing here)... and pet each other with your sophistry there?
I must admit that you had me fooled (for a while) with your 'innocent' just popping by on my way to lunch routine ... but NOW you begin to show your True Colours.
Get some meds, big guy.
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermobaric-weapon
The Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
Hmmmm... to have human bodies lifted and 'thrown' about. ???
Sounds familiar to me.
Need we really post those links again? The obfuscators are like drowning men seeking their last gasps of air.
Let's see if they can rescucitate themselves (without resorting to to the usual bull) ?
Edit to add --- Nope, guess not... I see a flurry of obfuscations.
I see the CAPITALIZER has SIGNED IN AGAIN... I am thoroughly IMPRESSED with THIS NONSENSICAL BS which PROOVES BEYOND DOUBT that...
... I'm not quite sure what he said, (breezing over the obfuscations as I did)
Reality Check... sorry, but you are so far from reality, that I'm not wasting efforts to refute your CAPITALIZED BOOGIE-WOOGIE.
You post total nonsense emphasized with CAPITALS, and I (for one) am not impressed with your 'knowledge' one little bit.
Maybe you should take 'Schneibys' hand and lead him back to the Quantum Physics discussion (which has nothing to do with the Basic Physics we are discussing here)... and pet each other with your sophistry there?
I must admit that you had me fooled (for a while) with your 'innocent' just popping by on my way to lunch routine ... but NOW you begin to show your True Colours.
Get some meds, big guy.
4 years and not one paper which passed peer review. Not even with the umteen *Cough*Scholars*Cough* in *Cough*Scholars*Cough* for *Cough*truth*Cough*
Sorry, I have a cold.
Sorry, I have a cold.
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 03:50 PM)
.........
...........
...........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?............
..............
Hi metamars!
If you have any understanding of 'convection' processes you will KNOW that during AN HOUR of raging fires on many levels THROUGH WHICH 'SHAFTS/PLENUMS' which existed BY DESIGN or had been BLOWN 'OPEN' by plane impact and JETFUEL-AIR WHCH ALSO WERE 'BLAST-DRIVEN' ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BASEMENT and would have opened MANY 'egress' points at MANY levels, the WHOLE BUILDING WOULD HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY SUFFUSED WITH SMOKE/PARTICULATES FROM IMPACT AND FIRES. So any LATER 'collapse front' pressurisation of each 'pancaking' floor space would INEVITABLYproduce SOME random escapes of that ALREADY DISTRIBUTED 'CONVECTED' DUST/SMOKE through wherever any 'openings' exist in the perimeter wall 'tube'. Or is that too difficult to envisage for you?
...........
...........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?............
..............
Hi metamars!
If you have any understanding of 'convection' processes you will KNOW that during AN HOUR of raging fires on many levels THROUGH WHICH 'SHAFTS/PLENUMS' which existed BY DESIGN or had been BLOWN 'OPEN' by plane impact and JETFUEL-AIR WHCH ALSO WERE 'BLAST-DRIVEN' ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BASEMENT and would have opened MANY 'egress' points at MANY levels, the WHOLE BUILDING WOULD HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY SUFFUSED WITH SMOKE/PARTICULATES FROM IMPACT AND FIRES. So any LATER 'collapse front' pressurisation of each 'pancaking' floor space would INEVITABLYproduce SOME random escapes of that ALREADY DISTRIBUTED 'CONVECTED' DUST/SMOKE through wherever any 'openings' exist in the perimeter wall 'tube'. Or is that too difficult to envisage for you?
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 02:29 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 01:39 AM)
I urge every "Scholar" who believe in CD to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
Are you now implying that idiot Hoffman and his idiot echo Jones were UNPROFESSIONAL and even WRONG to pretend to PROPERLY 'analyse' and 'treat' the 9/11 events without all the evidence? Gee, I wonder if (aprt from Hoffman's 'disappearing energy' blunder; and Jones' following him blindly in that blunder) THAT's why they both are a laughing stock?
BTW...met, I haven't seen your response to my suggestion that the 'disappearing' or 'pulverised' so-called 'spire' might also be explained by the 'shutter speed' of the video camera NOT capturing enough sequential images. That is, one 'frame' shows the 'spire' but the NEXT frame is not exposed soon enough to capture a 'spire' being WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE at high velocity by that nearby FAST TOPPLING column whipping the 'spires' support structure down when it 'hit' below camera shot. Anything comment on that? Cheers!
RC.
.
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
Are you now implying that idiot Hoffman and his idiot echo Jones were UNPROFESSIONAL and even WRONG to pretend to PROPERLY 'analyse' and 'treat' the 9/11 events without all the evidence? Gee, I wonder if (aprt from Hoffman's 'disappearing energy' blunder; and Jones' following him blindly in that blunder) THAT's why they both are a laughing stock?
BTW...met, I haven't seen your response to my suggestion that the 'disappearing' or 'pulverised' so-called 'spire' might also be explained by the 'shutter speed' of the video camera NOT capturing enough sequential images. That is, one 'frame' shows the 'spire' but the NEXT frame is not exposed soon enough to capture a 'spire' being WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE at high velocity by that nearby FAST TOPPLING column whipping the 'spires' support structure down when it 'hit' below camera shot. Anything comment on that? Cheers!
RC.
.
They have all the evidence they need, they don't have all the evidence they need...
I havent seen this many people do an about face since the USSR stopped doing parades in Red Square. Heh!
I havent seen this many people do an about face since the USSR stopped doing parades in Red Square. Heh!
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 26 2006, 02:34 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 26 2006, 02:14 AM)
This is a good video of what could be the second stage of a thermobaric weapons ;“Following the initial blast is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to have a human body lifted and thrown.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermobaric-weapon
The Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
Hmmmm... to have human bodies lifted and 'thrown' about. ???
Sounds familiar to me.
Need we really post those links again? The obfuscators are like drowning men seeking their last gasps of air.
Let's see if they can rescucitate themselves (without resorting to to the usual bull) ?
Edit to add --- Nope, guess not... I see a flurry of obfuscations.
I see the CAPITALIZER has SIGNED IN AGAIN... I am thoroughly IMPRESSED with THIS NONSENSICAL BS which PROOVES BEYOND DOUBT that...
... I'm not quite sure what he said, (breezing over the obfuscations as I did)
Gee "FOXX", for someone 'ignoring' my posts, you seem to be 'up' with them! Maybe you should take to 'capitalisation'. It couldn't hurt, it couldn't help either, since the real and criminally incompetent BSer here seems to be...tadddaaaa, "FOXX". But you knew that already, so no 'suspense' in the 'tadddaaa' for YOU, heh? Or are you 'ignoring' THIS post as well just before you mention it in one of your "FOXX" droppings?
The solution for your problem is simple, and was pointed out to you by Schneibster...that is, be HONEST and RESPECTFUL of those who OBVIOUSLY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND PHYSICS better than YOU and your clown parade do. It's not too much to ask that YOU believe there ARE real honest-to-goodness scientists here (who were here long before your intellectually insulting escapades) who are NOT shills and or obfuscators and/or etc....but genuine dissenters with YOUR unfounded and obviously prejudiced view of the PHYSICS (NOT 'politics'...not interested) argument/analysis? Is your paranoia and scattergun dismissal of contrary reasoned analyses going to help in any way? Could it be that the patience of GENUINE SCIENTISTS HERE has been 'exhausted' insofar as tolerance for anti-science and pro-prejudice 'debate' is concerned? No matter how 'gentlemanly or ladylike' a scientist IS here, they are only human, and cannot be expected to forever suffer without demur all your disgraceful and now-blatant and discredited tactics which have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH SCIENCE AND THE SEARCH FOR THE PHYSICAL TRUTHS OF THE MATTER. Is that enough 'capitals' for you?....as it seems that that's all you seem to comprehend of what people of good faith are PUTTING TO YOU in the name of science (and NOT, like some already self-implicated, in the name of politics/religion/terrorism).
Good luck!
RC.
.
it was NOT NIST's job to come up with an answer to every strange thing that happened that day or to provide an explanation for every question someone might have, even if their name is Steven Jones.
They stated clearly and concisely that NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found.
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue. If they had seriously tried to explain these phenomena, their implied Fairy Tale would have been clearly exposed for what it is.
As for their incredible statement that "NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demoltion was found", they are simply lying. Jones' paper is mostly about evidence for CD, as you know very well.
Which sums up nicely why a discussion with you is pointless.
You won't read the report, yet you formulate beliefs as to its veracity.
In fact you state the REASON for the report was to LIE.
As if ALL these scientists would LIE FOR BUSH and support the cover up of the murder of their countrymen (hard to believe it wouldn't include some of their friends and relatives as well)
Yet not a single TALL BUILDING ARCHITECT or STRUCTURAL ENGINEER has called them on this lie.
The insurance companies will pay out Billions, but will keep quiet.
The building industry and consultants ignore the lies even though the because of the NIST report they have come up with numerous recommendations which will cost the industry money and further will have global impact on building methods.
Engineers in OTHER COUNTRIES, like FRANCE or GERMANY, where being Anti-American is CERTAINLY not frowned upon, have not made a PEEP of protest?
Which seems to imply that the WHOLE FRIGGIN ARCHITECTURAL COMMUNITY is in Bush's pocket.
What a Guy.
Pulls off the Conspiracy of the Century and then orchestrates a GLOBAL cover up.
I bet he gets the Constitution changed so he can run for a THIRD TERM.
And, of course Diebold voting booths will insure he WINS
Arthur
When I wrote
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue.
I MEANT
I MEANT
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue.
Lying was a means to an end, which, again, was to OBSCURE the issue. Another means to that end was to ignore all of the phenomena which pointed away from their Fairy Tale handwaiving.
If the report from top to bottom was a lie, then the perpetrators would run a much higher risk of being exposed, and perhaps for normally reticent engineers to open their mouths and call a spade a spade. That's not how disinfo and coverups work.
Oh, that's right - you don't believe in disinfo and coverups, these are nothing but the blatherings of lunatic Conspiracy Theorists.
But that is your problem, not mine. My statements stand:
As for their incredible statement that "NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demoltion was found", they are simply lying.
and
and
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue.
As for your (no doubt intentionally) misleading statements conflating the final NIST report's content being obscurantistic by virtue of the efforts of some conspirators within NIST with (presumably) anybody at NIST who had anything to do with the report at all, quite frankly I could have produced the obvious counter-arguments to such nonsense when I was about 10 years old.
Rather than make mince-meat of yet another of your lousy "arguments", I will simply leave you, and anybody else, with the phrase "division of labor", and let you and them fill in the blanks as their homework.
BTW, if anybody at NIST is reading this, please have the person or persons who specifically inserted and/or approved of the language "NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found" to
1) identify themselves
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Does anyone know what this YAHOO is on about?
What the hell is a "WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE" 'something' by the "FAST TOPPLING'... ???
Are we talking recipes for angelcake here?
These people have no shame whatsoever, and will post drivel at great lengths to obfuscate issues...
unbelievable malarkey is posted here daily.
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermobaric-weapon
The Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
Hmmmm... to have human bodies lifted and 'thrown' about. ???
Sounds familiar to me.
Need we really post those links again? The obfuscators are like drowning men seeking their last gasps of air.
Let's see if they can rescucitate themselves (without resorting to to the usual bull) ?
Edit to add --- Nope, guess not... I see a flurry of obfuscations.
I see the CAPITALIZER has SIGNED IN AGAIN... I am thoroughly IMPRESSED with THIS NONSENSICAL BS which PROOVES BEYOND DOUBT that...
... I'm not quite sure what he said, (breezing over the obfuscations as I did)
Gee "FOXX", for someone 'ignoring' my posts, you seem to be 'up' with them! Maybe you should take to 'capitalisation'. It couldn't hurt, it couldn't help either, since the real and criminally incompetent BSer here seems to be...tadddaaaa, "FOXX". But you knew that already, so no 'suspense' in the 'tadddaaa' for YOU, heh? Or are you 'ignoring' THIS post as well just before you mention it in one of your "FOXX" droppings?
The solution for your problem is simple, and was pointed out to you by Schneibster...that is, be HONEST and RESPECTFUL of those who OBVIOUSLY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND PHYSICS better than YOU and your clown parade do. It's not too much to ask that YOU believe there ARE real honest-to-goodness scientists here (who were here long before your intellectually insulting escapades) who are NOT shills and or obfuscators and/or etc....but genuine dissenters with YOUR unfounded and obviously prejudiced view of the PHYSICS (NOT 'politics'...not interested) argument/analysis? Is your paranoia and scattergun dismissal of contrary reasoned analyses going to help in any way? Could it be that the patience of GENUINE SCIENTISTS HERE has been 'exhausted' insofar as tolerance for anti-science and pro-prejudice 'debate' is concerned? No matter how 'gentlemanly or ladylike' a scientist IS here, they are only human, and cannot be expected to forever suffer without demur all your disgraceful and now-blatant and discredited tactics which have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH SCIENCE AND THE SEARCH FOR THE PHYSICAL TRUTHS OF THE MATTER. Is that enough 'capitals' for you?....as it seems that that's all you seem to comprehend of what people of good faith are PUTTING TO YOU in the name of science (and NOT, like some already self-implicated, in the name of politics/religion/terrorism).
Good luck!
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 25 2006, 06:40 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
it was NOT NIST's job to come up with an answer to every strange thing that happened that day or to provide an explanation for every question someone might have, even if their name is Steven Jones.
They stated clearly and concisely that NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found.
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue. If they had seriously tried to explain these phenomena, their implied Fairy Tale would have been clearly exposed for what it is.
As for their incredible statement that "NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demoltion was found", they are simply lying. Jones' paper is mostly about evidence for CD, as you know very well.
Which sums up nicely why a discussion with you is pointless.
You won't read the report, yet you formulate beliefs as to its veracity.
In fact you state the REASON for the report was to LIE.
As if ALL these scientists would LIE FOR BUSH and support the cover up of the murder of their countrymen (hard to believe it wouldn't include some of their friends and relatives as well)
Yet not a single TALL BUILDING ARCHITECT or STRUCTURAL ENGINEER has called them on this lie.
The insurance companies will pay out Billions, but will keep quiet.
The building industry and consultants ignore the lies even though the because of the NIST report they have come up with numerous recommendations which will cost the industry money and further will have global impact on building methods.
Engineers in OTHER COUNTRIES, like FRANCE or GERMANY, where being Anti-American is CERTAINLY not frowned upon, have not made a PEEP of protest?
Which seems to imply that the WHOLE FRIGGIN ARCHITECTURAL COMMUNITY is in Bush's pocket.
What a Guy.
Pulls off the Conspiracy of the Century and then orchestrates a GLOBAL cover up.
I bet he gets the Constitution changed so he can run for a THIRD TERM.
And, of course Diebold voting booths will insure he WINS
Arthur
When I wrote
QUOTE
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue.
I MEANT
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue. |
I MEANT
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue.
Lying was a means to an end, which, again, was to OBSCURE the issue. Another means to that end was to ignore all of the phenomena which pointed away from their Fairy Tale handwaiving.
If the report from top to bottom was a lie, then the perpetrators would run a much higher risk of being exposed, and perhaps for normally reticent engineers to open their mouths and call a spade a spade. That's not how disinfo and coverups work.
Oh, that's right - you don't believe in disinfo and coverups, these are nothing but the blatherings of lunatic Conspiracy Theorists.
But that is your problem, not mine. My statements stand:
QUOTE
As for their incredible statement that "NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demoltion was found", they are simply lying.
and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
As for their incredible statement that "NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demoltion was found", they are simply lying. |
and
Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue.
As for your (no doubt intentionally) misleading statements conflating the final NIST report's content being obscurantistic by virtue of the efforts of some conspirators within NIST with (presumably) anybody at NIST who had anything to do with the report at all, quite frankly I could have produced the obvious counter-arguments to such nonsense when I was about 10 years old.
Rather than make mince-meat of yet another of your lousy "arguments", I will simply leave you, and anybody else, with the phrase "division of labor", and let you and them fill in the blanks as their homework.
BTW, if anybody at NIST is reading this, please have the person or persons who specifically inserted and/or approved of the language "NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found" to
1) identify themselves
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
QUOTE
BTW...met, I haven't seen your response to my suggestion that the 'disappearing' or 'pulverised' so-called 'spire' might also be explained by the 'shutter speed' of the video camera NOT capturing enough sequential images. That is, one 'frame' shows the 'spire' but the NEXT frame is not exposed soon enough to capture a 'spire' being WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE at high velocity by that nearby FAST TOPPLING column whipping the 'spires' support structure down when it 'hit' below camera shot. Anything comment on that? Cheers!
Does anyone know what this YAHOO is on about?
What the hell is a "WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE" 'something' by the "FAST TOPPLING'... ???
Are we talking recipes for angelcake here?
These people have no shame whatsoever, and will post drivel at great lengths to obfuscate issues...
unbelievable malarkey is posted here daily.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 26 2006, 02:21 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 01:39 AM)
I urge every "Scholar" who believe in CD to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Ehhh??? are you serious? I should just boldly step forward like Kevin Ryan?
Give your head a shake there Scooby-Doo. It's an easy challenge to make while I sit there with a gun to my head... what do you expect me to say?...
I accuse the lawful administration of complicity in mass-murder?
Who should I report that to.... 'Fox News'... CNN ... Dod... CIA.... Secret service... Congress???
How far will I get with my expose?
It will be shut down long before it reaches your ears, and that's what you count on to protect your secrets.
Too bad for YOU, that the free internet communication network came along. Yep, you got away with it 'last time', but YOUR 'time' is coming to an end. I certainly don't expect to see it tomorrow. Maybe I won't see it in my lifetime, but the Truth is coming to be exposed. Try to get on the right side of the ledger before you get exposed.
Too bad that very same "free internet communications network" is now the means of your own humiliation and defeat at the hands of people spread all over the globe who can see your terrorist-support/mercenary and prejudicial LIES and NON-SCIENCE arguments for what they are: "FOXX" droppings pure and simple.
Sounds like you need your meds AS WELL as your PHYSICS to be taken up a notch, "FOXX"...how's your leg, mate...chewed it off yet so that you can get out of that trap you constructed and set-off all on your lonesome? Must be terrible. FOUR YEARS to prove to everyone with access to a PC that "FOXX" is just another UFO/CT nutter and/or spammer/scammer facilitator for 'front' terrorist sites making money for their next outrage. Wonderful thing, that 'internet'...just about the ONLY thing that you haven't lied about, "FOXX".
By the way, MY colours are SOLELY MY OWN and are CLEAN; not so with YOURS, as everyone on this wonderful internet can see for themselves, heh? Not so effusive about that 'free internet' NOW, when it is YOU that is being 'exposed', are you mate? Cheers!
RC.
.
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Does anyone know what this YAHOO is on about?
What the hell is a "WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE" 'something' by the "FAST TOPPLING'... ???
These people have no shame whatsoever, and will post drivel at great lengths to obfuscate issues...
unbelievable malarkey is posted here daily.
Simple minds need simple explinations RC. Try not talking to him like a 5th grader. Think of faux as a 2 year old.
Ehhh??? are you serious? I should just boldly step forward like Kevin Ryan?
Give your head a shake there Scooby-Doo. It's an easy challenge to make while I sit there with a gun to my head... what do you expect me to say?...
I accuse the lawful administration of complicity in mass-murder?
Who should I report that to.... 'Fox News'... CNN ... Dod... CIA.... Secret service... Congress???
How far will I get with my expose?
It will be shut down long before it reaches your ears, and that's what you count on to protect your secrets.
Too bad for YOU, that the free internet communication network came along. Yep, you got away with it 'last time', but YOUR 'time' is coming to an end. I certainly don't expect to see it tomorrow. Maybe I won't see it in my lifetime, but the Truth is coming to be exposed. Try to get on the right side of the ledger before you get exposed.
Too bad that very same "free internet communications network" is now the means of your own humiliation and defeat at the hands of people spread all over the globe who can see your terrorist-support/mercenary and prejudicial LIES and NON-SCIENCE arguments for what they are: "FOXX" droppings pure and simple.
Sounds like you need your meds AS WELL as your PHYSICS to be taken up a notch, "FOXX"...how's your leg, mate...chewed it off yet so that you can get out of that trap you constructed and set-off all on your lonesome? Must be terrible. FOUR YEARS to prove to everyone with access to a PC that "FOXX" is just another UFO/CT nutter and/or spammer/scammer facilitator for 'front' terrorist sites making money for their next outrage. Wonderful thing, that 'internet'...just about the ONLY thing that you haven't lied about, "FOXX".
By the way, MY colours are SOLELY MY OWN and are CLEAN; not so with YOURS, as everyone on this wonderful internet can see for themselves, heh? Not so effusive about that 'free internet' NOW, when it is YOU that is being 'exposed', are you mate? Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE
1) identify themselves
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) identify themselves |
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 26 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE
BTW...met, I haven't seen your response to my suggestion that the 'disappearing' or 'pulverised' so-called 'spire' might also be explained by the 'shutter speed' of the video camera NOT capturing enough sequential images. That is, one 'frame' shows the 'spire' but the NEXT frame is not exposed soon enough to capture a 'spire' being WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE at high velocity by that nearby FAST TOPPLING column whipping the 'spires' support structure down when it 'hit' below camera shot. Anything comment on that? Cheers!
Does anyone know what this YAHOO is on about?
What the hell is a "WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE" 'something' by the "FAST TOPPLING'... ???
These people have no shame whatsoever, and will post drivel at great lengths to obfuscate issues...
unbelievable malarkey is posted here daily.
Simple minds need simple explinations RC. Try not talking to him like a 5th grader. Think of faux as a 2 year old.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 02:33 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 02:29 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 01:39 AM)
I urge every "Scholar" who believe in CD to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
You should publish before all the evidence that NIST had in its hands is in yours. Since your side says it's obvious with the evidence you have now... Heh!
I would say the evidence for WTC7 is obvious, painfully so. However, Professor Jones is acting like any good scientist should, and that is to prove his case as completely as possible, from different directions where this is possible.*
Since some of the "popes" have argued about the slag not being what Professor Jones thinks it is, and since giving him full access to it (rather than mere pictures) would easily settle the matter, your provocative statement, which is antithetical to the spirit of honest inquiry and good science, is exposed as the disingenuous pablum that it is.
The WTC 1&2 collapses are not as easy a cakewalk as this. Hence, the desirability of the physical evidence here is even greater.
Also, I'm sure Professor Jones would like to nail down exactly what agents were used in the CD. His goal is bigger than merely showing CD must have occurred. Indeed, in his paper he has suggested thermite, or some variation of that.
* The great mathematician Gauss often proved original theorems via different methods.
Does anyone know what this YAHOO is on about?
What the hell is a "WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE" 'something' by the "FAST TOPPLING'... ???
These people have no shame whatsoever, and will post drivel at great lengths to obfuscate issues...
unbelievable malarkey is posted here daily.
Still chewing your leg off, I see, "FOXX". Metamars knows EXACTLY what I refer to, even if you (to whom I was NOT speaking in the relevant post, by the way, idiot) do NOT. He knows the video I refer to, because it WAS supposed to be sort of HIS 'evidence' of the 'pulverisation' of that 'spire'. "FOXX", if you are going to flail about like this, please get someone who cares about you to restrain you...you may damage yourself even more than you have done already. Pity.
RC.
.
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
You should publish before all the evidence that NIST had in its hands is in yours. Since your side says it's obvious with the evidence you have now... Heh!
I would say the evidence for WTC7 is obvious, painfully so. However, Professor Jones is acting like any good scientist should, and that is to prove his case as completely as possible, from different directions where this is possible.*
Since some of the "popes" have argued about the slag not being what Professor Jones thinks it is, and since giving him full access to it (rather than mere pictures) would easily settle the matter, your provocative statement, which is antithetical to the spirit of honest inquiry and good science, is exposed as the disingenuous pablum that it is.
The WTC 1&2 collapses are not as easy a cakewalk as this. Hence, the desirability of the physical evidence here is even greater.
Also, I'm sure Professor Jones would like to nail down exactly what agents were used in the CD. His goal is bigger than merely showing CD must have occurred. Indeed, in his paper he has suggested thermite, or some variation of that.
* The great mathematician Gauss often proved original theorems via different methods.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 26 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE
BTW...met, I haven't seen your response to my suggestion that the 'disappearing' or 'pulverised' so-called 'spire' might also be explained by the 'shutter speed' of the video camera NOT capturing enough sequential images. That is, one 'frame' shows the 'spire' but the NEXT frame is not exposed soon enough to capture a 'spire' being WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE at high velocity by that nearby FAST TOPPLING column whipping the 'spires' support structure down when it 'hit' below camera shot. Anything comment on that? Cheers!
Does anyone know what this YAHOO is on about?
What the hell is a "WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE" 'something' by the "FAST TOPPLING'... ???
These people have no shame whatsoever, and will post drivel at great lengths to obfuscate issues...
unbelievable malarkey is posted here daily.
Still chewing your leg off, I see, "FOXX". Metamars knows EXACTLY what I refer to, even if you (to whom I was NOT speaking in the relevant post, by the way, idiot) do NOT. He knows the video I refer to, because it WAS supposed to be sort of HIS 'evidence' of the 'pulverisation' of that 'spire'. "FOXX", if you are going to flail about like this, please get someone who cares about you to restrain you...you may damage yourself even more than you have done already. Pity.
RC.
.
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 02:33 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 02:29 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 01:39 AM)
I urge every "Scholar" who believe in CD to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
You should publish before all the evidence that NIST had in its hands is in yours. Since your side says it's obvious with the evidence you have now... Heh!
I would say the evidence for WTC7 is obvious, painfully so. However, Professor Jones is acting like any good scientist should, and that is to prove his case as completely as possible, from different directions where this is possible.*
Since some of the "popes" have argued about the slag not being what Professor Jones thinks it is, and since giving him full access to it (rather than mere pictures) would easily settle the matter, your provocative statement, which is antithetical to the spirit of honest inquiry and good science, is exposed as the disingenuous pablum that it is.
The WTC 1&2 collapses are not as easy a cakewalk as this. Hence, the desirability of the physical evidence here is even greater.
Also, I'm sure Professor Jones would like to nail down exactly what agents were used in the CD. His goal is bigger than merely showing CD must have occurred. Indeed, in his paper he has suggested thermite, or some variation of that.
* The great mathematician Gauss often proved original theorems via different methods.
I urge every "Scholar" who believes in the CD of WTC 7 to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
Well, that's embarrassing..
But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
is better written
is better written
But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report, with everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report at all , is absurd.
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
You should publish before all the evidence that NIST had in its hands is in yours. Since your side says it's obvious with the evidence you have now... Heh!
I would say the evidence for WTC7 is obvious, painfully so. However, Professor Jones is acting like any good scientist should, and that is to prove his case as completely as possible, from different directions where this is possible.*
Since some of the "popes" have argued about the slag not being what Professor Jones thinks it is, and since giving him full access to it (rather than mere pictures) would easily settle the matter, your provocative statement, which is antithetical to the spirit of honest inquiry and good science, is exposed as the disingenuous pablum that it is.
The WTC 1&2 collapses are not as easy a cakewalk as this. Hence, the desirability of the physical evidence here is even greater.
Also, I'm sure Professor Jones would like to nail down exactly what agents were used in the CD. His goal is bigger than merely showing CD must have occurred. Indeed, in his paper he has suggested thermite, or some variation of that.
* The great mathematician Gauss often proved original theorems via different methods.
I urge every "Scholar" who believes in the CD of WTC 7 to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE
1) identify themselves
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) identify themselves |
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE
1) identify themselves
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) identify themselves |
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
Well, that's embarrassing..
QUOTE
But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
is better written
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd. |
is better written
But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report, with everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report at all , is absurd.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 03:46 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 02:33 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 02:29 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 01:39 AM)
I urge every "Scholar" who believe in CD to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
You should publish before all the evidence that NIST had in its hands is in yours. Since your side says it's obvious with the evidence you have now... Heh!
I would say the evidence for WTC7 is obvious, painfully so. However, Professor Jones is acting like any good scientist should, and that is to prove his case as completely as possible, from different directions where this is possible.*
Since some of the "popes" have argued about the slag not being what Professor Jones thinks it is, and since giving him full access to it (rather than mere pictures) would easily settle the matter, your provocative statement, which is antithetical to the spirit of honest inquiry and good science, is exposed as the disingenuous pablum that it is.
The WTC 1&2 collapses are not as easy a cakewalk as this. Hence, the desirability of the physical evidence here is even greater.
Also, I'm sure Professor Jones would like to nail down exactly what agents were used in the CD. His goal is bigger than merely showing CD must have occurred. Indeed, in his paper he has suggested thermite, or some variation of that.
* The great mathematician Gauss often proved original theorems via different methods.
I urge every "Scholar" who believes in the CD of WTC 7 to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Metamars, surely you are not doing the 'greatness-by-name-dropping-association' annointing act when it comes to Jones? Are you implying that Jones is BY ANY MEASURE worthy to (have) lick(ed) the boots of Gauss?
Please refrain from 'borrowing greatness and/or authority' from DEAD geniuses who can't laugh in your face or sue you and Jones for impersonating 'thinking' persons. Thanks.
RC.
.
Pfffttt...hehehe...
Yeah... I think you 'gots' a handle on the NIST report there, metamars.
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
I'm not speaking for them, only pointing out how unrealistic your request was.
It only takes ONE to insert that text but it takes ALL the scientist working with ALL the different pieces of evidence to allow that test to go unchallenged publiclly. They would know if that text was right or wrong. It's ABSURD to suggest NO ONE IN NIST would point to evidence of a mass murder because they fear for their job. We are talking about people who make up the fire test, metal tests, photographic evidence, computer modeling, on and on. WAY to many people would have to be in on it. ABSURD!
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
Met, are you implying that all those who were NOT 'in', the alleged NIST conspiracy, have NOT read the report they contributed to, and are NOT aware of how their work/words have been 'allegedly twisted' by 'filters' higher up? Or that THEY ARE ALL COWARDS who would out of fear etc. protect an alleged murdering administration responsible for 9/11? You seem to have little faith in the existence of at least ONE GOOD PERSON amongst all those who 'weren't 'in' on it.
Especially since MANY of those contributors would have already had GUT FEELING and PAPER AND PENCIL etc. EDUCATED estimates/guesses as to what those simulations/experiments SHOULD SHOW in view of their OWN 'professional experience'.
RC.
.
Can someone pass me the shovel and my rubber boots.
Strawmen are passe... aren't they?
Can someone pass me the shovel and my rubber boots.
Strawmen are passe... aren't they?
"FOXX"...go back and include the added sentence to my relevant post, for the sake of completeness, heh?
And instead of replying to posters whom you are avowedly supposed to be 'ignoring', why not spend the time TO PRESENT COHERENT PHYSICS ARGUMENTS instead of "FOXX" droppings like that last useless one? newton would be so proud of you. Cheers!
RC.
.
Can someone pass me the shovel and my rubber boots.
Strawmen are passe... aren't they?
Hes turned into JamesX. Heh!
Way to go RC, Hes speechless.
Can someone pass me the shovel and my rubber boots.
Strawmen are passe... aren't they?
Hes turned into JamesX. Heh!
Way to go RC, Hes speechless.
Hi CS.
As is now painfully obvious to all with access to "FOXX"s "great free internet communications network", FOXX and co never HAD anything much to SAY that was of any REAL substance. No change, really. 4yrs or no 4yrs, it's as stupid and MUTE ON THE PHYSICS then as it is now. As I said, no change. Typical.
Regards,
RC.
.
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
Met, are you implying that all those who were NOT 'in', the alleged NIST conspiracy, have NOT read the report they contributed to, and are NOT aware of how their work/words have been 'allegedly twisted' by 'filters' higher up? Or that THEY ARE ALL COWARDS who would out of fear etc. protect an alleged murdering administration responsible for 9/11? You seem to have little faith in the existence of at least ONE GOOD PERSON amongst all those who 'weren't 'in' on it.
Especially since MANY of those contributors would have already had GUT FEELING and PAPER AND PENCIL etc. EDUCATED estimates/guesses as to what those simulations/experiments SHOULD SHOW in view of their OWN 'professional experience'.
RC.
.
Total BS. Technically, there is nothing wrong with the report except they used the worst-case variables to make the model unstable. What happens when the model is unstable is then open to interpretation of the videos. By not even modeling the collapse then stating that global collapse obviously follows (and videos do prove this) nobody is covering anything up.
They openly admit the preliminary (middle) variables would not initiate collapse
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
You should publish before all the evidence that NIST had in its hands is in yours. Since your side says it's obvious with the evidence you have now... Heh!
I would say the evidence for WTC7 is obvious, painfully so. However, Professor Jones is acting like any good scientist should, and that is to prove his case as completely as possible, from different directions where this is possible.*
Since some of the "popes" have argued about the slag not being what Professor Jones thinks it is, and since giving him full access to it (rather than mere pictures) would easily settle the matter, your provocative statement, which is antithetical to the spirit of honest inquiry and good science, is exposed as the disingenuous pablum that it is.
The WTC 1&2 collapses are not as easy a cakewalk as this. Hence, the desirability of the physical evidence here is even greater.
Also, I'm sure Professor Jones would like to nail down exactly what agents were used in the CD. His goal is bigger than merely showing CD must have occurred. Indeed, in his paper he has suggested thermite, or some variation of that.
* The great mathematician Gauss often proved original theorems via different methods.
I urge every "Scholar" who believes in the CD of WTC 7 to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Metamars, surely you are not doing the 'greatness-by-name-dropping-association' annointing act when it comes to Jones? Are you implying that Jones is BY ANY MEASURE worthy to (have) lick(ed) the boots of Gauss?
Please refrain from 'borrowing greatness and/or authority' from DEAD geniuses who can't laugh in your face or sue you and Jones for impersonating 'thinking' persons. Thanks.
RC.
.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Metamars
When I wrote
"Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue."
I MEANT
"Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue."
When I wrote
"Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue."
I MEANT
"Their job was, I believe, to obscure the issue."
Pfffttt...hehehe...
Yeah... I think you 'gots' a handle on the NIST report there, metamars.
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE
1) identify themselves
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) identify themselves |
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
I'm not speaking for them, only pointing out how unrealistic your request was.
QUOTE
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
It only takes ONE to insert that text but it takes ALL the scientist working with ALL the different pieces of evidence to allow that test to go unchallenged publiclly. They would know if that text was right or wrong. It's ABSURD to suggest NO ONE IN NIST would point to evidence of a mass murder because they fear for their job. We are talking about people who make up the fire test, metal tests, photographic evidence, computer modeling, on and on. WAY to many people would have to be in on it. ABSURD!
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE
1) identify themselves
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) identify themselves |
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
Met, are you implying that all those who were NOT 'in', the alleged NIST conspiracy, have NOT read the report they contributed to, and are NOT aware of how their work/words have been 'allegedly twisted' by 'filters' higher up? Or that THEY ARE ALL COWARDS who would out of fear etc. protect an alleged murdering administration responsible for 9/11? You seem to have little faith in the existence of at least ONE GOOD PERSON amongst all those who 'weren't 'in' on it.
Especially since MANY of those contributors would have already had GUT FEELING and PAPER AND PENCIL etc. EDUCATED estimates/guesses as to what those simulations/experiments SHOULD SHOW in view of their OWN 'professional experience'.
RC.
.
QUOTE
Met, are you implying that all those who were NOT 'in', the alleged NIST conspiracy, have NOT read the report they contributed to, and are NOT aware of how their work/words have been 'allegedly twisted' by 'filters' higher up? Are THEY ALL COWARDS who would out of fear etc. protect an alleged murdering administration responsible for 9/11? You seem to have little faith in the existence of at least ONE GOOD PERSON amongst all those who 'weren't 'in' on it.
RC.
RC.
Can someone pass me the shovel and my rubber boots.
Strawmen are passe... aren't they?
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 26 2006, 04:10 AM)
QUOTE
Met, are you implying that all those who were NOT 'in', the alleged NIST conspiracy, have NOT read the report they contributed to, and are NOT aware of how their work/words have been 'allegedly twisted' by 'filters' higher up? Are THEY ALL COWARDS who would out of fear etc. protect an alleged murdering administration responsible for 9/11? You seem to have little faith in the existence of at least ONE GOOD PERSON amongst all those who 'weren't 'in' on it.
RC.
RC.
Can someone pass me the shovel and my rubber boots.
Strawmen are passe... aren't they?
"FOXX"...go back and include the added sentence to my relevant post, for the sake of completeness, heh?
And instead of replying to posters whom you are avowedly supposed to be 'ignoring', why not spend the time TO PRESENT COHERENT PHYSICS ARGUMENTS instead of "FOXX" droppings like that last useless one? newton would be so proud of you. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 26 2006, 04:10 AM)
QUOTE
Met, are you implying that all those who were NOT 'in', the alleged NIST conspiracy, have NOT read the report they contributed to, and are NOT aware of how their work/words have been 'allegedly twisted' by 'filters' higher up? Are THEY ALL COWARDS who would out of fear etc. protect an alleged murdering administration responsible for 9/11? You seem to have little faith in the existence of at least ONE GOOD PERSON amongst all those who 'weren't 'in' on it.
RC.
RC.
Can someone pass me the shovel and my rubber boots.
Strawmen are passe... aren't they?
Hes turned into JamesX. Heh!
Way to go RC, Hes speechless.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 04:15 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 26 2006, 04:10 AM)
QUOTE
Met, are you implying that all those who were NOT 'in', the alleged NIST conspiracy, have NOT read the report they contributed to, and are NOT aware of how their work/words have been 'allegedly twisted' by 'filters' higher up? Are THEY ALL COWARDS who would out of fear etc. protect an alleged murdering administration responsible for 9/11? You seem to have little faith in the existence of at least ONE GOOD PERSON amongst all those who 'weren't 'in' on it.
RC.
RC.
Can someone pass me the shovel and my rubber boots.
Strawmen are passe... aren't they?
Hes turned into JamesX. Heh!
Way to go RC, Hes speechless.
Hi CS.
As is now painfully obvious to all with access to "FOXX"s "great free internet communications network", FOXX and co never HAD anything much to SAY that was of any REAL substance. No change, really. 4yrs or no 4yrs, it's as stupid and MUTE ON THE PHYSICS then as it is now. As I said, no change. Typical.
Regards,
RC.
.
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 26 2006, 04:24 AM)
How's that investigation going, Schnoob?
Have you caught the spammers yet?
I don't know about him but I caught the crabs from your mom.
Have you caught the spammers yet?
I don't know about him but I caught the crabs from your mom.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 25 2006, 08:02 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE
1) identify themselves
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) identify themselves |
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
Met, are you implying that all those who were NOT 'in', the alleged NIST conspiracy, have NOT read the report they contributed to, and are NOT aware of how their work/words have been 'allegedly twisted' by 'filters' higher up? Or that THEY ARE ALL COWARDS who would out of fear etc. protect an alleged murdering administration responsible for 9/11? You seem to have little faith in the existence of at least ONE GOOD PERSON amongst all those who 'weren't 'in' on it.
Especially since MANY of those contributors would have already had GUT FEELING and PAPER AND PENCIL etc. EDUCATED estimates/guesses as to what those simulations/experiments SHOULD SHOW in view of their OWN 'professional experience'.
RC.
.
Total BS. Technically, there is nothing wrong with the report except they used the worst-case variables to make the model unstable. What happens when the model is unstable is then open to interpretation of the videos. By not even modeling the collapse then stating that global collapse obviously follows (and videos do prove this) nobody is covering anything up.
They openly admit the preliminary (middle) variables would not initiate collapse
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 26 2006, 04:24 AM)
How's that investigation going, Schnoob?
Have you caught the spammers yet?
Great. Just what "FOXX" needs right now, more pathos provided by the (what did they call him....oh yeah) JamesDweeb. How cruel.
RC.
.
Have you caught the spammers yet?
Great. Just what "FOXX" needs right now, more pathos provided by the (what did they call him....oh yeah) JamesDweeb. How cruel.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 26 2006, 03:03 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 03:50 PM)
.........
...........
...........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?............
..............
Hi metamars!
If you have any understanding of 'convection' processes you will KNOW that during AN HOUR of raging fires on many levels THROUGH WHICH 'SHAFTS/PLENUMS' which existed BY DESIGN or had been BLOWN 'OPEN' by plane impact and JETFUEL-AIR WHCH ALSO WERE 'BLAST-DRIVEN' ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BASEMENT and would have opened MANY 'egress' points at MANY levels, the WHOLE BUILDING WOULD HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY SUFFUSED WITH SMOKE/PARTICULATES FROM IMPACT AND FIRES. So any LATER 'collapse front' pressurisation of each 'pancaking' floor space would INEVITABLYproduce SOME random escapes of that ALREADY DISTRIBUTED 'CONVECTED' DUST/SMOKE through wherever any 'openings' exist in the perimeter wall 'tube'. Or is that too difficult to envisage for you?
...........
...........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?............
..............
Hi metamars!
If you have any understanding of 'convection' processes you will KNOW that during AN HOUR of raging fires on many levels THROUGH WHICH 'SHAFTS/PLENUMS' which existed BY DESIGN or had been BLOWN 'OPEN' by plane impact and JETFUEL-AIR WHCH ALSO WERE 'BLAST-DRIVEN' ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BASEMENT and would have opened MANY 'egress' points at MANY levels, the WHOLE BUILDING WOULD HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY SUFFUSED WITH SMOKE/PARTICULATES FROM IMPACT AND FIRES. So any LATER 'collapse front' pressurisation of each 'pancaking' floor space would INEVITABLYproduce SOME random escapes of that ALREADY DISTRIBUTED 'CONVECTED' DUST/SMOKE through wherever any 'openings' exist in the perimeter wall 'tube'. Or is that too difficult to envisage for you?
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 02:29 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 01:39 AM)
I urge every "Scholar" who believe in CD to publish your papers in a peer reviewed Structural Engineering journal. You have no excuse. It's been 4 years now.
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
Are you now implying that idiot Hoffman and his idiot echo Jones were UNPROFESSIONAL and even WRONG to pretend to PROPERLY 'analyse' and 'treat' the 9/11 events without all the evidence? Gee, I wonder if (aprt from Hoffman's 'disappearing energy' blunder; and Jones' following him blindly in that blunder) THAT's why they both are a laughing stock?
BTW...met, I haven't seen your response to my suggestion that the 'disappearing' or 'pulverised' so-called 'spire' might also be explained by the 'shutter speed' of the video camera NOT capturing enough sequential images. That is, one 'frame' shows the 'spire' but the NEXT frame is not exposed soon enough to capture a 'spire' being WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE at high velocity by that nearby FAST TOPPLING column whipping the 'spires' support structure down when it 'hit' below camera shot. Anything comment on that? Cheers!
RC.
.
You seem to be pretending that Hoffman and Jones had a choice in the matter, and that if any evidence was to be used in a court case, chain of custody issues could be ignored and Jones and Hoffman could have a free run at the evidence, anyway.
Are you?
Your slanderous remarks about them being "idiots" deserves little comments from me, except to say 1) look at Jones resume and Hoffman's accomplishments and 2) how does your resume stack up in comparison?
Besides technical accomplishments, need I add that most people would find that their communication skills far surpass yours? Or do you think that a "stream of consciousness" style of writing is suitable for a scientist, on a physics forum?
As for your comments about "convection processes", etc.,
1) I frankly haven't followed the discussion much about "jetfuel-air being blast-driven down to the basement", partly because I find it very implausible, and partly because the "basement explosions" (if that's what they were) don't interest me all that much, unless it can be convincingly shown to have had something to do with the buildings' destruction, one way or the other (i.e., CD or FEMA Fairy Tale)
2) even if we grant such a scenario, I fail to see how this would explain how the pulverized dust would blow through the window, from the very onset of it's destruction, so many stories below a hypothetical pile driver, at a perpendiclar angle from the elevator shafts, no less. Even charitably working within the limits of your "flowingly written", qualitative scenario, you still haven't convincingly explained, even by way of a mediocre analogy, how dust could be projected so far from the source - except to say that Dust/Smoke from the 1 hour "raging" fire "thoroughly suffused" through the "whole building".
Ah-h-h-h-h, perhaps you find this verbal picture convincing, but I certainly don't. If there was this large amount of ash lying around, should not a noticeable amount of it have been seen coming from the gaping holes, left by the jets, well before collapse ensued? You know, blown about by a gust of wind, that sort of thing?
To me, the answer is obvious, which raises the question as to why you would even present such a poor idea. As a minor detail, OK, but as a primary factor??
Well, who am I to question your intellect? Anybody who would refer to both Hoffman and Jones as "idiots" is surely a much smarter person than I could ever hope to be.
3) the more doubtful a qualitative argument, such as yours, the greater the need to make it quantitative, to possibly rescue it. In a sense, the only point you demonstrated with your post is the desirability of a fluid hydrodynamic + FEA analysis. If you intended to demonstrate why such is not necessary, then from my point of view, anyway, you have failed completely.
As for the spire collapse, I myself raised the issue about limits following from frames per second considerations. However, I may have posted this at AH, not here. Frankly, I don't remember which.
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
Met, are you implying that all those who were NOT 'in', the alleged NIST conspiracy, have NOT read the report they contributed to, and are NOT aware of how their work/words have been 'allegedly twisted' by 'filters' higher up? Or that THEY ARE ALL COWARDS who would out of fear etc. protect an alleged murdering administration responsible for 9/11? You seem to have little faith in the existence of at least ONE GOOD PERSON amongst all those who 'weren't 'in' on it.
Especially since MANY of those contributors would have already had GUT FEELING and PAPER AND PENCIL etc. EDUCATED estimates/guesses as to what those simulations/experiments SHOULD SHOW in view of their OWN 'professional experience'.
RC.
.
Total BS. Technically, there is nothing wrong with the report except they used the worst-case variables to make the model unstable. What happens when the model is unstable is then open to interpretation of the videos. By not even modeling the collapse then stating that global collapse obviously follows (and videos do prove this) nobody is covering anything up.
They openly admit the preliminary (middle) variables would not initiate collapse
In your world the "preliminary" variable is better than one which had more factors taken into account. In what world is it that the first time you calculate something like the collapse of something like a 110 story office building the best calculation? Could it be that the first time they left some important factors out? Maybe something they didn't have evidence for either way? And if they are "Fixing outcomes" why wouldn't that be known by more than just few people? How do they change say the computer model without changing the photographic evidence? How do they keep this ever growing conspiracy under wraps?
Talk about BS...
Should we publish before or after we get our hands on all the evidence that NIST had in its hands? After all, it's been 4 years, now. They certainly don't need the evidence anymore, since (according to most of you guys, apparently) their work is done.
Are you now implying that idiot Hoffman and his idiot echo Jones were UNPROFESSIONAL and even WRONG to pretend to PROPERLY 'analyse' and 'treat' the 9/11 events without all the evidence? Gee, I wonder if (aprt from Hoffman's 'disappearing energy' blunder; and Jones' following him blindly in that blunder) THAT's why they both are a laughing stock?
BTW...met, I haven't seen your response to my suggestion that the 'disappearing' or 'pulverised' so-called 'spire' might also be explained by the 'shutter speed' of the video camera NOT capturing enough sequential images. That is, one 'frame' shows the 'spire' but the NEXT frame is not exposed soon enough to capture a 'spire' being WHIPPED DOWN/ASIDE at high velocity by that nearby FAST TOPPLING column whipping the 'spires' support structure down when it 'hit' below camera shot. Anything comment on that? Cheers!
RC.
.
You seem to be pretending that Hoffman and Jones had a choice in the matter, and that if any evidence was to be used in a court case, chain of custody issues could be ignored and Jones and Hoffman could have a free run at the evidence, anyway.
Are you?
Your slanderous remarks about them being "idiots" deserves little comments from me, except to say 1) look at Jones resume and Hoffman's accomplishments and 2) how does your resume stack up in comparison?
Besides technical accomplishments, need I add that most people would find that their communication skills far surpass yours? Or do you think that a "stream of consciousness" style of writing is suitable for a scientist, on a physics forum?
As for your comments about "convection processes", etc.,
1) I frankly haven't followed the discussion much about "jetfuel-air being blast-driven down to the basement", partly because I find it very implausible, and partly because the "basement explosions" (if that's what they were) don't interest me all that much, unless it can be convincingly shown to have had something to do with the buildings' destruction, one way or the other (i.e., CD or FEMA Fairy Tale)
2) even if we grant such a scenario, I fail to see how this would explain how the pulverized dust would blow through the window, from the very onset of it's destruction, so many stories below a hypothetical pile driver, at a perpendiclar angle from the elevator shafts, no less. Even charitably working within the limits of your "flowingly written", qualitative scenario, you still haven't convincingly explained, even by way of a mediocre analogy, how dust could be projected so far from the source - except to say that Dust/Smoke from the 1 hour "raging" fire "thoroughly suffused" through the "whole building".
Ah-h-h-h-h, perhaps you find this verbal picture convincing, but I certainly don't. If there was this large amount of ash lying around, should not a noticeable amount of it have been seen coming from the gaping holes, left by the jets, well before collapse ensued? You know, blown about by a gust of wind, that sort of thing?
To me, the answer is obvious, which raises the question as to why you would even present such a poor idea. As a minor detail, OK, but as a primary factor??
Well, who am I to question your intellect? Anybody who would refer to both Hoffman and Jones as "idiots" is surely a much smarter person than I could ever hope to be.
3) the more doubtful a qualitative argument, such as yours, the greater the need to make it quantitative, to possibly rescue it. In a sense, the only point you demonstrated with your post is the desirability of a fluid hydrodynamic + FEA analysis. If you intended to demonstrate why such is not necessary, then from my point of view, anyway, you have failed completely.
As for the spire collapse, I myself raised the issue about limits following from frames per second considerations. However, I may have posted this at AH, not here. Frankly, I don't remember which.
Ok... so we have had some fun here tonight bashing and thrashing other posters ...
but let's get back to the issue originally posted by 'reasonwhy'
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/thermite.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite03.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thernite04.jpg
The above is clear-cut photo-video evidence of an occurance just preceding the actual collapse.
It is (once again) an 'anomaly'... 'what' is happening in this picture/video evidence?...
... which seems to show 'something' melting in the video?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
Anyone care to try to 'fit' this evidence with the 'official story' ?
Any input?... (rational input, that is) ?
... but let's get back to the issue originally posted by 'reasonwhy'
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/thermite.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thermite03.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Thernite04.jpg
The above is clear-cut photo-video evidence of an occurance just preceding the actual collapse.
It is (once again) an 'anomaly'... 'what' is happening in this picture/video evidence?...
... which seems to show 'something' melting in the video?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
Anyone care to try to 'fit' this evidence with the 'official story' ?
Any input?... (rational input, that is) ?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 26 2006, 04:31 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 25 2006, 08:02 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 26 2006, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE
1) identify themselves
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) identify themselves |
Why? To have a bunch of paranoid nutcases harass them and their family? They don't have to "in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper."
2) explain to us why we should call their statement anything other than a lie, in light of all the evidence articulated in Professor Jones' paper.
Because Jone's paper hasn't passed peer review for some very good reasons discussed in this thread. Because for 400 pages on this thread people like Schneibster and RC proved him wrong. Because Jones LIES about the context of the quotes in his paper.
Since I don't presume you were involved in inserting the "NO EVIDENCE" lie into the NIST report, I don't presume that you should speak for them.
Getting harassed is a real concern, on both sides of the issue. But my point was more rhetorical - to show clearly how conflating the parties guilty of inserting such nonsense into the report in no way implies that everybody in NIST who had anything to do with the report was "in on it" , is absurd.
Met, are you implying that all those who were NOT 'in', the alleged NIST conspiracy, have NOT read the report they contributed to, and are NOT aware of how their work/words have been 'allegedly twisted' by 'filters' higher up? Or that THEY ARE ALL COWARDS who would out of fear etc. protect an alleged murdering administration responsible for 9/11? You seem to have little faith in the existence of at least ONE GOOD PERSON amongst all those who 'weren't 'in' on it.
Especially since MANY of those contributors would have already had GUT FEELING and PAPER AND PENCIL etc. EDUCATED estimates/guesses as to what those simulations/experiments SHOULD SHOW in view of their OWN 'professional experience'.
RC.
.
Total BS. Technically, there is nothing wrong with the report except they used the worst-case variables to make the model unstable. What happens when the model is unstable is then open to interpretation of the videos. By not even modeling the collapse then stating that global collapse obviously follows (and videos do prove this) nobody is covering anything up.
They openly admit the preliminary (middle) variables would not initiate collapse
QUOTE
They openly admit the preliminary (middle) variables would not initiate collapse
In your world the "preliminary" variable is better than one which had more factors taken into account. In what world is it that the first time you calculate something like the collapse of something like a 110 story office building the best calculation? Could it be that the first time they left some important factors out? Maybe something they didn't have evidence for either way? And if they are "Fixing outcomes" why wouldn't that be known by more than just few people? How do they change say the computer model without changing the photographic evidence? How do they keep this ever growing conspiracy under wraps?
Talk about BS...
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 04:43 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 26 2006, 03:03 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 25 2006, 03:50 PM)
.........
...........
...........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?............
..............
Hi metamars!
If you have any understanding of 'convection' processes you will KNOW that during AN HOUR of raging fires on many levels THROUGH WHICH 'SHAFTS/PLENUMS' which existed BY DESIGN or had been BLOWN 'OPEN' by plane impact and JETFUEL-AIR WHCH ALSO WERE 'BLAST-DRIVEN' ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BASEMENT and would have opened MANY 'egress' points at MANY levels, the WHOLE BUILDING WOULD HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY SUFFUSED WITH SMOKE/PARTICULATES FROM IMPACT AND FIRES. So any LATER 'collapse front' pressurisation of each 'pancaking' floor space would INEVITABLYproduce SOME random escapes of that ALREADY DISTRIBUTED 'CONVECTED' DUST/SMOKE through wherever any 'openings' exist in the perimeter wall 'tube'. Or is that too difficult to envisage for you?
...........
...........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?............
..............
Hi metamars!
If you have any understanding of 'convection' processes you will KNOW that during AN HOUR of raging fires on many levels THROUGH WHICH 'SHAFTS/PLENUMS' which existed BY DESIGN or had been BLOWN 'OPEN' by plane impact and JETFUEL-AIR WHCH ALSO WERE 'BLAST-DRIVEN' ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BASEMENT and would have opened MANY 'egress' points at MANY levels, the WHOLE BUILDING WOULD HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY SUFFUSED WITH SMOKE/PARTICULATES FROM IMPACT AND FIRES. So any LATER 'collapse front' pressurisation of each 'pancaking' floor space would INEVITABLYproduce SOME random escapes of that ALREADY DISTRIBUTED 'CONVECTED' DUST/SMOKE through wherever any 'openings' exist in the perimeter wall 'tube'. Or is that too difficult to envisage for you?
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 26 2006, 02:29 AM)