QUOTE (newton+Feb 17 2006, 02:45 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 17 2006, 03:41 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 15 2006, 02:58 PM)
explain the flashes from the helicopter, with something besides, 'camera flash', because they were WAY too bright from that distance(1.8 miles) and too obscured by heavy smoke, to be little 1.5 watt powered camera flashes.
please also explain why that particular 'copter flew TO the towers along the smoke plume on a blue sky day. there was a gazillion cubic acres of clear air, and these guys fly in the smoke. why? why did they hover directly over? why did they say, 'mission accomplished' over the radio immediately after the flashes were seen(i can't say for sure that it was this helicopter that broadcast that message, but the timing was right)? what mission?
perhaps it was a top secret particle beam weapon of laser.
or maybe it was an industrial strength gigawatt camera flash.
or maybe it was a shoulder fired missile, and no i don't think that DESTROYED the towers, but rather initiated the collapse. i'm speculate that if this is true, that the remote control to the charges that were SUPPOSED to initiate the collapse failed, and this was a back-up plan.
Yeah, Shoulder Fired missile is the LOGICAL conclusion.
Couldn't be a friggin SEARCH LIGHT, you know, like ALL Police Helos have installed?
And while from the distance (almost 2 miles) this video was taken, the helo is reduced to a dot, just a few pixels in size (thus NO DETAIL at all) newt claims he can tell that it is flying INSIDE the smoke cloud, when in fact it and the smoke cloud are the SAME COLOR at this distance.
What's more, its actually reasonably clear that it is either over WTC 1 or possibly closer to camera, not closer to WTC 2 when we see the flashes, but not only is NO explosion seen in or over WTC 2, its 20 seconds after the flashes before WTC 2 collapses. Of course no shoulder fired weapon could fire multiple shots as fast as the flashes appear, and unlike Luketober's suggestion, the helo is not present over the towers long enough to deploy a missile battery, fire the shots and get rid of the battery.
But to Luketober and newt this is EVIDENCE.
Lord help you if you get tried and one of these two morons are on the jury, apparently their definition of what constitutes EVIDENCE allows a LOT of latitude.
Arthur
it is clearly flying in the smoke. everyone(except you) who viewed the 911eyewitness video agrees. it is not just newt.
as you say, the helicopter is but a speck at that distance. which makes the light even brighter.
you can watch the helicopter fly through the smoke in the video arthur, you don't have to pretend that i made it up, or that it's not possible. it's on the video. you know, the video? where you point a camera at something and capture the images of it's motion and stuff?
the police and rescue teams were ORDERED not to attempt any rooftop rescue, so your searchlight theory is completely lame, like most of your crazy muslim terrorist conspiracy theories.
as i said, unknown science is indistinguishable from magic.
your blanket statements about what cannot exist are, frankly, hilarious.
p.s. the f16's weren't shooting anything on 911. FEMA and guiliani were giving all the commands, and there was enough chaos that your arguments are out of order.
i would say, 'ditto' about your jury comment. you are the master of the foregone conclusion.
Hey Newt,
According to you:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...2F11+eyewitness
Well in this new frenzy about the molten metal dripping out of the tower we have a different view of what happened.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
And GUESS WHAT, it IS the same helo in this new video.
And you know what?
ITS NOT FLYING IN THE SMOKE.
Arthur
please also explain why that particular 'copter flew TO the towers along the smoke plume on a blue sky day. there was a gazillion cubic acres of clear air, and these guys fly in the smoke. why? why did they hover directly over? why did they say, 'mission accomplished' over the radio immediately after the flashes were seen(i can't say for sure that it was this helicopter that broadcast that message, but the timing was right)? what mission?
perhaps it was a top secret particle beam weapon of laser.
or maybe it was an industrial strength gigawatt camera flash.
or maybe it was a shoulder fired missile, and no i don't think that DESTROYED the towers, but rather initiated the collapse. i'm speculate that if this is true, that the remote control to the charges that were SUPPOSED to initiate the collapse failed, and this was a back-up plan.
Yeah, Shoulder Fired missile is the LOGICAL conclusion.
Couldn't be a friggin SEARCH LIGHT, you know, like ALL Police Helos have installed?
And while from the distance (almost 2 miles) this video was taken, the helo is reduced to a dot, just a few pixels in size (thus NO DETAIL at all) newt claims he can tell that it is flying INSIDE the smoke cloud, when in fact it and the smoke cloud are the SAME COLOR at this distance.
What's more, its actually reasonably clear that it is either over WTC 1 or possibly closer to camera, not closer to WTC 2 when we see the flashes, but not only is NO explosion seen in or over WTC 2, its 20 seconds after the flashes before WTC 2 collapses. Of course no shoulder fired weapon could fire multiple shots as fast as the flashes appear, and unlike Luketober's suggestion, the helo is not present over the towers long enough to deploy a missile battery, fire the shots and get rid of the battery.
But to Luketober and newt this is EVIDENCE.
Lord help you if you get tried and one of these two morons are on the jury, apparently their definition of what constitutes EVIDENCE allows a LOT of latitude.
Arthur
it is clearly flying in the smoke. everyone(except you) who viewed the 911eyewitness video agrees. it is not just newt.
as you say, the helicopter is but a speck at that distance. which makes the light even brighter.
you can watch the helicopter fly through the smoke in the video arthur, you don't have to pretend that i made it up, or that it's not possible. it's on the video. you know, the video? where you point a camera at something and capture the images of it's motion and stuff?
the police and rescue teams were ORDERED not to attempt any rooftop rescue, so your searchlight theory is completely lame, like most of your crazy muslim terrorist conspiracy theories.
as i said, unknown science is indistinguishable from magic.
your blanket statements about what cannot exist are, frankly, hilarious.
p.s. the f16's weren't shooting anything on 911. FEMA and guiliani were giving all the commands, and there was enough chaos that your arguments are out of order.
i would say, 'ditto' about your jury comment. you are the master of the foregone conclusion.
Hey Newt,
According to you:
QUOTE
it is clearly flying in the smoke. everyone(except you) who viewed the 911eyewitness video agrees.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...2F11+eyewitness
Well in this new frenzy about the molten metal dripping out of the tower we have a different view of what happened.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
And GUESS WHAT, it IS the same helo in this new video.
And you know what?
ITS NOT FLYING IN THE SMOKE.
Arthur
Nice to know you're all keeping busy. I liked Foxx's last post. Just the kind to attract vitriol and ridicule (always a shame to see this behaviour on a science forum - which is why I lit the blue touch paper and retired - to focus on looking at evidence...)
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Feb 27 2006, 08:30 PM)
Nice to know you're all keeping busy. I liked Foxx's last post. Just the kind to attract vitriol and ridicule (always a shame to see this behaviour on a science forum - which is why I lit the blue touch paper and retired - to focus on looking at evidence...)
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hey Andrew,
Have you removed that reference to a Reinforced Concrete Core on your web site?
And are you still claiming that at least one of the towers may have fell at FASTER than Free Fall (IIRC, that it had been SUCKED down?)
Arthur
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hey Andrew,
Have you removed that reference to a Reinforced Concrete Core on your web site?
And are you still claiming that at least one of the towers may have fell at FASTER than Free Fall (IIRC, that it had been SUCKED down?)
Arthur
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Feb 28 2006, 12:30 AM)
Nice to know you're all keeping busy. I liked Foxx's last post. Just the kind to attract vitriol and ridicule (always a shame to see this behaviour on a science forum - which is why I lit the blue touch paper and retired - to focus on looking at evidence...)
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hi Andrew Johnson!
As everyone knows by now, my PC is old and non-standard, and I can only view JPGs and MPGs.
Do you have that referenced material of yours available in jpg/mpg? Thanks.
Oh, how are you coming along with "looking at evidence"? Any new hypotheses; or support for previous hypotheses? Thanks.
RC.
.
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hi Andrew Johnson!
As everyone knows by now, my PC is old and non-standard, and I can only view JPGs and MPGs.
Do you have that referenced material of yours available in jpg/mpg? Thanks.
Oh, how are you coming along with "looking at evidence"? Any new hypotheses; or support for previous hypotheses? Thanks.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 28 2006, 02:02 AM)
Hi Andrew Johnson!
As everyone knows by now, my PC is old and non-standard, and I can only view JPGs and MPGs.
Do you have that referenced material of yours available in jpg/mpg? Thanks.
Oh, how are you coming along with "looking at evidence"? Any new hypotheses; or support for previous hypotheses? Thanks.
RC.
.
RC,
This is just another of your riduculous, unfounded claims. I had no idea until after you posted this that you had an old, non-standard claim. Please try to live up to your name and keep your posts in the realm of reality.
As everyone knows by now, my PC is old and non-standard, and I can only view JPGs and MPGs.
Do you have that referenced material of yours available in jpg/mpg? Thanks.
Oh, how are you coming along with "looking at evidence"? Any new hypotheses; or support for previous hypotheses? Thanks.
RC.
.
RC,
This is just another of your riduculous, unfounded claims. I had no idea until after you posted this that you had an old, non-standard claim. Please try to live up to your name and keep your posts in the realm of reality.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 27 2006, 10:02 PM)
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Feb 28 2006, 12:30 AM)
Nice to know you're all keeping busy. I liked Foxx's last post. Just the kind to attract vitriol and ridicule (always a shame to see this behaviour on a science forum - which is why I lit the blue touch paper and retired - to focus on looking at evidence...)
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hi Andrew Johnson!
As everyone knows by now, my PC is old and non-standard, and I can only view JPGs and MPGs.
Do you have that referenced material of yours available in jpg/mpg? Thanks.
Oh, how are you coming along with "looking at evidence"? Any new hypotheses; or support for previous hypotheses? Thanks.
RC.
.
RC,
If your old clunker can handle ZIPPED files (as in WinZip) the first link is a zipped set of JPG files.
Why ANYONE bothers to Zip Jpeg files is beyond me.
Zip is a general purpose compression algorithm.
JPEG files is a Compression Algorithm specifically for pictures. Thus JPEG does better than ZIP does.
Since JPEG files are already compressed you get zip compression when you Zip a JPEG file.
Arthur
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hi Andrew Johnson!
As everyone knows by now, my PC is old and non-standard, and I can only view JPGs and MPGs.
Do you have that referenced material of yours available in jpg/mpg? Thanks.
Oh, how are you coming along with "looking at evidence"? Any new hypotheses; or support for previous hypotheses? Thanks.
RC.
.
RC,
If your old clunker can handle ZIPPED files (as in WinZip) the first link is a zipped set of JPG files.
Why ANYONE bothers to Zip Jpeg files is beyond me.
Zip is a general purpose compression algorithm.
JPEG files is a Compression Algorithm specifically for pictures. Thus JPEG does better than ZIP does.
Since JPEG files are already compressed you get zip compression when you Zip a JPEG file.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 02:00 AM)
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Feb 27 2006, 08:30 PM)
Nice to know you're all keeping busy. I liked Foxx's last post. Just the kind to attract vitriol and ridicule (always a shame to see this behaviour on a science forum - which is why I lit the blue touch paper and retired - to focus on looking at evidence...)
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hey Andrew,
Have you removed that reference to a Reinforced Concrete Core on your web site?
And are you still claiming that at least one of the towers may have fell at FASTER than Free Fall (IIRC, that it had been SUCKED down?)
Arthur
So you have shown that the fires were indeed hot enough to melt aluminum. Actually the video shows what could better be decribed as burning aluminum. This could be aircraft skin or aluminum cladding from the tower itself. Seems to me photos of this are in one of the NIST reports as well.
Is this supposed to be the origin of the 'rivers' of molten metal in the subterranean fires of the debris pile?
The video is instructive in another way though , as it shows the collapse of WTC2. After the building finishes collapsing the dust rises straight up to a height that seems to be almost half the height of the still standing north tower.
This illustrates quite well that debris gets thrown upwards when it hits a stationary level. This shows the origin of upward plumes during the collapses thenas debris impacts floors and rebounds. It would not go up as high as it does when it finally hits the ground since the floors are crumpling and not as much energy would be available for rebound.
If anyone doubts this please take a standard cresent wrench(adjustable spanner for our non-North American friends) and drop it end on to the floor. It bounces!
Try again with gravel, it too bounces.
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hey Andrew,
Have you removed that reference to a Reinforced Concrete Core on your web site?
And are you still claiming that at least one of the towers may have fell at FASTER than Free Fall (IIRC, that it had been SUCKED down?)
Arthur
So you have shown that the fires were indeed hot enough to melt aluminum. Actually the video shows what could better be decribed as burning aluminum. This could be aircraft skin or aluminum cladding from the tower itself. Seems to me photos of this are in one of the NIST reports as well.
Is this supposed to be the origin of the 'rivers' of molten metal in the subterranean fires of the debris pile?
The video is instructive in another way though , as it shows the collapse of WTC2. After the building finishes collapsing the dust rises straight up to a height that seems to be almost half the height of the still standing north tower.
This illustrates quite well that debris gets thrown upwards when it hits a stationary level. This shows the origin of upward plumes during the collapses thenas debris impacts floors and rebounds. It would not go up as high as it does when it finally hits the ground since the floors are crumpling and not as much energy would be available for rebound.
If anyone doubts this please take a standard cresent wrench(adjustable spanner for our non-North American friends) and drop it end on to the floor. It bounces!
Try again with gravel, it too bounces.
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Feb 28 2006, 12:30 AM)
Nice to know you're all keeping busy. I liked Foxx's last post. Just the kind to attract vitriol and ridicule (always a shame to see this behaviour on a science forum - which is why I lit the blue touch paper and retired - to focus on looking at evidence...)
Foxx's last post is all vitriol and ridicule. If it attracts same it can hardly be unexpected.
Foxx's last post is all vitriol and ridicule. If it attracts same it can hardly be unexpected.
foxx's post was purr-fect.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2006, 06:00 PM)
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Feb 27 2006, 08:30 PM)
Nice to know you're all keeping busy. I liked Foxx's last post. Just the kind to attract vitriol and ridicule (always a shame to see this behaviour on a science forum - which is why I lit the blue touch paper and retired - to focus on looking at evidence...)
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hey Andrew,
Have you removed that reference to a Reinforced Concrete Core on your web site?
And are you still claiming that at least one of the towers may have fell at FASTER than Free Fall (IIRC, that it had been SUCKED down?)
Arthur
Arthur ,
If it bothers you so much , why don’t you write the BBC. They are the originators of the disinformation and Andrew never claims the core is concrete.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm
Can you point me to the post that proves the towers were not sucked down by explosive pressure?
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hey Andrew,
Have you removed that reference to a Reinforced Concrete Core on your web site?
And are you still claiming that at least one of the towers may have fell at FASTER than Free Fall (IIRC, that it had been SUCKED down?)
Arthur
Arthur ,
If it bothers you so much , why don’t you write the BBC. They are the originators of the disinformation and Andrew never claims the core is concrete.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm
Can you point me to the post that proves the towers were not sucked down by explosive pressure?
Foxx's Last Post.
Now that's something I would toast to.
Arthur
Now that's something I would toast to.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 27 2006, 11:42 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2006, 06:00 PM)
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Feb 27 2006, 08:30 PM)
Nice to know you're all keeping busy. I liked Foxx's last post. Just the kind to attract vitriol and ridicule (always a shame to see this behaviour on a science forum - which is why I lit the blue touch paper and retired - to focus on looking at evidence...)
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hey Andrew,
Have you removed that reference to a Reinforced Concrete Core on your web site?
And are you still claiming that at least one of the towers may have fell at FASTER than Free Fall (IIRC, that it had been SUCKED down?)
Arthur
Arthur ,
If it bother you so much , why don’t you write the BBC. They are the originators of the disinformation and Andrew never claims the core is concrete.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm
Can you point me to the post that proves the towers were not sucked down by explosive pressure?
If you post info that YOU KNOW IS INCORRECT, you are LYING.
It was pointed out a LONG TIME ago to AJ, yet he leaves it on his site.
As was shown in the graph of the forces generated by a High Explosive, the pressure pulse is followed by the negative inflow, but the AREA under the negative curve is not greater than the original positive pressure, consequently there can be no "sucked down" effect.
But don't take my word for it, show me where ANYONE has proven one can cause a building to fall faster than free fall by use of explosives.
Arthur
on this page
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
Stay tuned, kiddies"[/b].
Take a look at where all this 'science' is coming from that Schneibster keeps posting...simple copy-pastes... and when you challenge them on any, they quickly scurry away... or simply copy-paste the same nonsense again.
Real Conspiracy...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm
The Fireman Quotes...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/quotes.htm
The Perl Program...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
Transformer Explosions...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/transformer.htm
Free Fall...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/freefall.htm
Did anyone ever really think that the Schneibster was intelligent enough to make all this up?
You forgot this one...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
Dumb a$$.
I have a question...
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL NOW? HAHAHAHA!!!!
You're a regular Barnny Fife!
"foxx's post was purr-fect."
HAHAHA!!!
Did anyone ever really think that the Schneibster was intelligent enough to make all this up?
Of course not. The Schneibster Army is the largest congregation of blithering idiots ever assembled in one mentally ill person's sick, lonely mind. He probably can't write a grocery list without copying it from somewhere.
Did anyone ever really think that the Schneibster was intelligent enough to make all this up?
Of course not. The Schneibster Army is the largest congregation of blithering idiots ever assembled in one mentally ill person's sick, lonely mind. He probably can't write a grocery list without copying it from somewhere.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
Foxx's sock puppet comes to defend him. Heh! The a$$ STILL doesn't know I own the site. Heh!
I'm not Catholic so I am not eligible to be a 'pope'.
So, I wonder how many of the CT popes have or would like to run Jones' paper by a real engineering faculty member. To my knowledge none has. Gee whiz, boys and girls, why do you think that would be the case?
As I have said before I do encourage it for those with the strength of their convections supplying the cajones to do it. I won't. Perhaps if I knew anyone in an engineering faculty personally I might but I do not wish to be mistaken for one who believes in Jones' theories.
BTW metamars, Q#2 isn't a question of physics. Its a test of the quality of the reader's paranoia
The molten metal in one of the WTC Towers is interesting. Anyone who wants to use some piccies in their debating and baiting can get them here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/WTC%20Molten%20Metal.zip
Video here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.wmv
Hey Andrew,
Have you removed that reference to a Reinforced Concrete Core on your web site?
And are you still claiming that at least one of the towers may have fell at FASTER than Free Fall (IIRC, that it had been SUCKED down?)
Arthur
Arthur ,
If it bother you so much , why don’t you write the BBC. They are the originators of the disinformation and Andrew never claims the core is concrete.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm
Can you point me to the post that proves the towers were not sucked down by explosive pressure?
If you post info that YOU KNOW IS INCORRECT, you are LYING.
It was pointed out a LONG TIME ago to AJ, yet he leaves it on his site.
As was shown in the graph of the forces generated by a High Explosive, the pressure pulse is followed by the negative inflow, but the AREA under the negative curve is not greater than the original positive pressure, consequently there can be no "sucked down" effect.
But don't take my word for it, show me where ANYONE has proven one can cause a building to fall faster than free fall by use of explosives.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 27 2006, 07:11 PM)
on this page
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
Stay tuned, kiddies"[/b].
Take a look at where all this 'science' is coming from that Schneibster keeps posting...simple copy-pastes... and when you challenge them on any, they quickly scurry away... or simply copy-paste the same nonsense again.
Real Conspiracy...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm
The Fireman Quotes...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/quotes.htm
The Perl Program...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
Transformer Explosions...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/transformer.htm
Free Fall...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/freefall.htm
Did anyone ever really think that the Schneibster was intelligent enough to make all this up?
You forgot this one...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
Dumb a$$.
I have a question...
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL NOW? HAHAHAHA!!!!
You're a regular Barnny Fife!
"foxx's post was purr-fect."
HAHAHA!!!
Quote;RC
So it seems (there's another 'iffy' word, heh?) that you have learned NOTHING from you CTers' debacle with the firemen MISquotes where they heard what "sounded like explosions" when they were describing the 'progressive booms' of the floors pancaking. Are "seems", "appears", "looks like" and "sounds like" your whole criteria for what is observed in all these cases? Don't you apply logic, experience, common sense and Occam's Razor at all? Ever? Never?
Let's get this straight: The fire men were saying and gesturing; to a regular beat of - BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP......and you suggest, they were referencing sequential floor impacts?
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
So it seems (there's another 'iffy' word, heh?) that you have learned NOTHING from you CTers' debacle with the firemen MISquotes where they heard what "sounded like explosions" when they were describing the 'progressive booms' of the floors pancaking. Are "seems", "appears", "looks like" and "sounds like" your whole criteria for what is observed in all these cases? Don't you apply logic, experience, common sense and Occam's Razor at all? Ever? Never?
Let's get this straight: The fire men were saying and gesturing; to a regular beat of - BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP......and you suggest, they were referencing sequential floor impacts?
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 28 2006, 04:41 AM)
Quote;RC
So it seems (there's another 'iffy' word, heh?) that you have learned NOTHING from you CTers' debacle with the firemen MISquotes where they heard what "sounded like explosions" when they were describing the 'progressive booms' of the floors pancaking. Are "seems", "appears", "looks like" and "sounds like" your whole criteria for what is observed in all these cases? Don't you apply logic, experience, common sense and Occam's Razor at all? Ever? Never?
Let's get this straight: The fire men were saying and gesturing; to a regular beat of - BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP......and you suggest, they were referencing sequential floor impacts?
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
It was NOT 10 seconds. More like 12-14. I have heard the sound on one tape which sounds more like 14 but I can't be sure. The FACT is the loose change video stops the timer at 10:09 while the building is still falling is a hint. They are conning you. The building was clearly still about 40 stories because it just disappears behind the cloud. It was hidden behind the cloud so for anyone to say exactly how long it took would be lying.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
So it seems (there's another 'iffy' word, heh?) that you have learned NOTHING from you CTers' debacle with the firemen MISquotes where they heard what "sounded like explosions" when they were describing the 'progressive booms' of the floors pancaking. Are "seems", "appears", "looks like" and "sounds like" your whole criteria for what is observed in all these cases? Don't you apply logic, experience, common sense and Occam's Razor at all? Ever? Never?
Let's get this straight: The fire men were saying and gesturing; to a regular beat of - BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP......and you suggest, they were referencing sequential floor impacts?
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
It was NOT 10 seconds. More like 12-14. I have heard the sound on one tape which sounds more like 14 but I can't be sure. The FACT is the loose change video stops the timer at 10:09 while the building is still falling is a hint. They are conning you. The building was clearly still about 40 stories because it just disappears behind the cloud. It was hidden behind the cloud so for anyone to say exactly how long it took would be lying.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
QUOTE (Commen sense+Feb 28 2006, 04:18 AM)
Dumb a$$.
You forgot this one...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
I have a question...
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL NOW? HAHAHAHA!!!!
You're a regular Barnny Fife!
"foxx's post was purr-fect."
HAHAHA!!!
Oomph!!
Now that's funny!!
You forgot this one...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
I have a question...
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL NOW? HAHAHAHA!!!!
You're a regular Barnny Fife!
"foxx's post was purr-fect."
HAHAHA!!!
Oomph!!
Now that's funny!!
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 27 2006, 07:11 PM)
Did anyone ever really think that the Schneibster was intelligent enough to make all this up?
Of course not. The Schneibster Army is the largest congregation of blithering idiots ever assembled in one mentally ill person's sick, lonely mind. He probably can't write a grocery list without copying it from somewhere.
professor jones just did the experiments, as described by dr. greening, to test the 'coincidental thermite' paper, which has been modified, by the way, and no longer contains reference to the mystery of tower seven.
or the mystery of why greening doesn't do his own experiments. it's his theory, afterall.
purr-fect, LOL!
or the mystery of why greening doesn't do his own experiments. it's his theory, afterall.
purr-fect, LOL!
I recently viewed part of a video which re-iterated the observation of near-total pulverization of the concrete, by a well known source - Governor Pataki.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
QUOTE (Guest_Bill+Feb 28 2006, 04:46 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 27 2006, 07:11 PM)
Did anyone ever really think that the Schneibster was intelligent enough to make all this up?
Of course not. The Schneibster Army is the largest congregation of blithering idiots ever assembled in one mentally ill person's sick, lonely mind. He probably can't write a grocery list without copying it from somewhere.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
Foxx's sock puppet comes to defend him. Heh! The a$$ STILL doesn't know I own the site. Heh!
C.S. may I point out that if the loosechange video stops as the debris hits the ground AND the tower still has 40 stories upright that the free fall time from 40 stories(496 feet) is 5.5 seconds. (30 floors-4.8 seconds and even if it is only 20 floors it is 3.9 seconds)
Given that anything on that 40th floor is stationary it cannot fall faster than free fall unless it is subject to another force other than gravity.
Now the already falling debris that hits that floor will impart some velocity to that 40th floor debris exchanging some of its momentum with the slower(initially stationary) 40th floor debris. Thus lower stories actually could fall faster than free fall from their location(they are subject to additional forces).
An additional 4-6 seconds beyond the 10 seconds of this video would not be unusual.
The editing of this clip is really unwarrented. If the editor had wanted to be strictly honest it would start a few seconds before collapse, the timers would start at collapse initiation, and the timer would run until the building was down. Elapsed times could be shown for first debris to hit the ground and for possible points at which the entire tower was down. This would show the range of collapse time.
Instead the author attempts to edit this clip to bolster his claim that his time of collapse is all there is to it. Pure sophistry and anyone who buys into it wholeheartedly is no better.
Given that anything on that 40th floor is stationary it cannot fall faster than free fall unless it is subject to another force other than gravity.
Now the already falling debris that hits that floor will impart some velocity to that 40th floor debris exchanging some of its momentum with the slower(initially stationary) 40th floor debris. Thus lower stories actually could fall faster than free fall from their location(they are subject to additional forces).
An additional 4-6 seconds beyond the 10 seconds of this video would not be unusual.
The editing of this clip is really unwarrented. If the editor had wanted to be strictly honest it would start a few seconds before collapse, the timers would start at collapse initiation, and the timer would run until the building was down. Elapsed times could be shown for first debris to hit the ground and for possible points at which the entire tower was down. This would show the range of collapse time.
Instead the author attempts to edit this clip to bolster his claim that his time of collapse is all there is to it. Pure sophistry and anyone who buys into it wholeheartedly is no better.
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 28 2006, 04:56 AM)
I recently viewed part of a video which re-iterated the observation of near-total pulverization of the concrete, by a well known source - Governor Pataki.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
This is why I created the site. These questions just keep repeating and it's much easier to link...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
If a person can swing a sledge hammer and break apart concrete floors, what do you think a 32 story building landing on it would do? What about on the way down? Concrete and steel smashing into each other in the mother of all jack hammers. I could easily see the concrete getting smaller and smaller as the building collapse.
Grabbing at straws isn't going to give this CT lunacy any legs.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
This is why I created the site. These questions just keep repeating and it's much easier to link...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
If a person can swing a sledge hammer and break apart concrete floors, what do you think a 32 story building landing on it would do? What about on the way down? Concrete and steel smashing into each other in the mother of all jack hammers. I could easily see the concrete getting smaller and smaller as the building collapse.
Grabbing at straws isn't going to give this CT lunacy any legs.
I have 2 questions for my fellow "Conspiracy Theorists"
Q #1) Has anybody following this thread placed Jones' paper, together with a CD of the collapse of WTC7, into the hands of your local civil engineering faculty?
IMO, anybody who thinks slinging mud with the "popes" is in anyway superior to approaching "the big boys" is kidding themselves.
Q #2) Note well that none of the popes (with the exception of yesitdid, if you consider him to be a pope) has EVER encouraged us to run the technical papers by engineering/physics faculty. *
Gee whiz, boys and girls, why do you think that would be the case? This is NOT a rhetorical question. I'd like some of the regular, Unofficial-Conspiracy-Theorist posters to state their answer to my question.
Hopefully I will be able to distribute some "CARE packages" myself in a few weeks. I had Monday off last week, and was planning to do so then, but slept during most of it.
* Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Q #1) Has anybody following this thread placed Jones' paper, together with a CD of the collapse of WTC7, into the hands of your local civil engineering faculty?
IMO, anybody who thinks slinging mud with the "popes" is in anyway superior to approaching "the big boys" is kidding themselves.
Q #2) Note well that none of the popes (with the exception of yesitdid, if you consider him to be a pope) has EVER encouraged us to run the technical papers by engineering/physics faculty. *
Gee whiz, boys and girls, why do you think that would be the case? This is NOT a rhetorical question. I'd like some of the regular, Unofficial-Conspiracy-Theorist posters to state their answer to my question.
Hopefully I will be able to distribute some "CARE packages" myself in a few weeks. I had Monday off last week, and was planning to do so then, but slept during most of it.
* Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 28 2006, 05:12 AM)
C.S. may I point out that if the loosechange video stops as the debris hits the ground AND the tower still has 40 stories upright that the free fall time from 40 stories(496 feet) is 5.5 seconds. (30 floors-4.8 seconds and even if it is only 20 floors it is 3.9 seconds)
Given that anything on that 40th floor is stationary it cannot fall faster than free fall unless it is subject to another force other than gravity.
Now the already falling debris that hits that floor will impart some velocity to that 40th floor debris exchanging some of its momentum with the slower(initially stationary) 40th floor debris. Thus lower stories actually could fall faster than free fall from their location(they are subject to additional forces).
An additional 4-6 seconds beyond the 10 seconds of this video would not be unusual.
The editing of this clip is really unwarrented. If the editor had wanted to be strictly honest it would start a few seconds before collapse, the timers would start at collapse initiation, and the timer would run until the building was down. Elapsed times could be shown for first debris to hit the ground and for possible points at which the entire tower was down. This would show the range of collapse time.
Instead the author attempts to edit this clip to bolster his time of collapse is al there is to it. Pure sophistry and anyone who buys into it wholeheartedly is no better.
So my original estimate based on sound is more correct. About 14 to 15 seconds. Maybe 16. I was trying to be conservative. But even at 12 seconds it's more than enough to rip apart this glorified lego set.
Given that anything on that 40th floor is stationary it cannot fall faster than free fall unless it is subject to another force other than gravity.
Now the already falling debris that hits that floor will impart some velocity to that 40th floor debris exchanging some of its momentum with the slower(initially stationary) 40th floor debris. Thus lower stories actually could fall faster than free fall from their location(they are subject to additional forces).
An additional 4-6 seconds beyond the 10 seconds of this video would not be unusual.
The editing of this clip is really unwarrented. If the editor had wanted to be strictly honest it would start a few seconds before collapse, the timers would start at collapse initiation, and the timer would run until the building was down. Elapsed times could be shown for first debris to hit the ground and for possible points at which the entire tower was down. This would show the range of collapse time.
Instead the author attempts to edit this clip to bolster his time of collapse is al there is to it. Pure sophistry and anyone who buys into it wholeheartedly is no better.
So my original estimate based on sound is more correct. About 14 to 15 seconds. Maybe 16. I was trying to be conservative. But even at 12 seconds it's more than enough to rip apart this glorified lego set.
QUOTE
Note well that none of the popes (with the exception of yesitdid, if you consider him to be a pope) has EVER encouraged us to run the technical papers by engineering/physics faculty.
I'm not Catholic so I am not eligible to be a 'pope'.
So, I wonder how many of the CT popes have or would like to run Jones' paper by a real engineering faculty member. To my knowledge none has. Gee whiz, boys and girls, why do you think that would be the case?
As I have said before I do encourage it for those with the strength of their convections supplying the cajones to do it. I won't. Perhaps if I knew anyone in an engineering faculty personally I might but I do not wish to be mistaken for one who believes in Jones' theories.
BTW metamars, Q#2 isn't a question of physics. Its a test of the quality of the reader's paranoia
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 28 2006, 05:17 AM)
I have 2 questions for my fellow "Conspiracy Theorists"
Q #1) Has anybody following this thread placed Jones' paper, together with a CD of the collapse of WTC7, into the hands of your local civil engineering faculty?
IMO, anybody who thinks slinging mud with the "popes" is in anyway superior to approaching "the big boys" is kidding themselves.
Q #2) Note well that none of the popes (with the exception of yesitdid, if you consider him to be a pope) has EVER encouraged us to run the technical papers by engineering/physics faculty. *
Gee whiz, boys and girls, why do you think that would be the case? This is NOT a rhetorical question. I'd like some of the regular, Unofficial-Conspiracy-Theorist posters to state their answer to my question.
Hopefully I will be able to distribute some "CARE packages" myself in a few weeks. I had Monday off last week, and was planning to do so then, but slept during most of it.
* Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
OWFG!!! We've been BEGGING YOU to pass your papers through peer review!!! YOU even said I had a valid argument!
I have to ask why in 4 years haven't YOU thought of running it by your local civil engineering faculty! I would think you would have done that before creating web sites. It seems you wanted a web site before helping solve the biggest mass murder in US history. You must think it's not much of a murder...
"Pope" is an insult, just as if I called you an idiot or dumb a$$. You dumb a$$.. The degree of insult means nothing.
Back atcha 
Q #1) Has anybody following this thread placed Jones' paper, together with a CD of the collapse of WTC7, into the hands of your local civil engineering faculty?
IMO, anybody who thinks slinging mud with the "popes" is in anyway superior to approaching "the big boys" is kidding themselves.
Q #2) Note well that none of the popes (with the exception of yesitdid, if you consider him to be a pope) has EVER encouraged us to run the technical papers by engineering/physics faculty. *
Gee whiz, boys and girls, why do you think that would be the case? This is NOT a rhetorical question. I'd like some of the regular, Unofficial-Conspiracy-Theorist posters to state their answer to my question.
Hopefully I will be able to distribute some "CARE packages" myself in a few weeks. I had Monday off last week, and was planning to do so then, but slept during most of it.
* Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
OWFG!!! We've been BEGGING YOU to pass your papers through peer review!!! YOU even said I had a valid argument!
I have to ask why in 4 years haven't YOU thought of running it by your local civil engineering faculty! I would think you would have done that before creating web sites. It seems you wanted a web site before helping solve the biggest mass murder in US history. You must think it's not much of a murder...
"Pope" is an insult, just as if I called you an idiot or dumb a$$. You dumb a$$.. The degree of insult means nothing.
Back atcha
QUOTE (Commen sense+Feb 28 2006, 05:12 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 28 2006, 04:56 AM)
I recently viewed part of a video which re-iterated the observation of near-total pulverization of the concrete, by a well known source - Governor Pataki.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
This is why I created the site. These questions just keep repeating and it's much easier to link...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
If a person can swing a sledge hammer and break apart concrete floors, what do you think a 32 story building landing on it would do? What about on the way down? Concrete and steel smashing into each other in the mother of all jack hammers. I could easily see the concrete getting smaller and smaller as the building collapse.
Grabbing at straws isn't going to give this CT lunacy any legs.
The near total pulverisation is what Hoffman has claimed all along, and I find his claim that due to the fineness of the dust, heating* occurred almost instantly to be eminently plausible. **
Recall that most of the concrete-related unexplained energy deficit that Hoffman calculated was due to the heating of the concrete, NOT the pulverisation.
As for your web site, I doubt I'll be looking at it. Your arguments tend to be shoddy, insulting, distortionist, and deceptive. Why should I expect anything different from your web site?
Anyway, why would you want little 'ole me to look at it? You can ask "Reality Check" to Really Check it out - he's a scientist, you know!!
Likewise, you shouldn't waste your time asking Hoffman or Professor Jones to look at your site. According to Scientist "Reality Check", they are "idiots", and doubtless wouldn't even understand it.
* Of course, he means heating AT THE SOURCE
** though I'd still like to see at least a calculation, and preferably some kind of experimental evidence; A far bigger issue is the lack of fluid hydrodynamical modeling. This lack makes Hoffman's approach a non-starter, in the minds of more serious critics like JayUtah at ApolloHoax.net
,,,,, and now I answer my own question.
1) Because they do not believe that engineers will agree with Jones for three reasons.
a ) Because the engineering community requires gov't funding and they don't want to rock the boat
b ) Because engineers stick together even if it means lieing
c) Because all engineers are 'in on it"
2) They don't really have the stength of conviction to try it.
3) They don't want the MIB knocking on their door later that evening
4) They have taken it to an engineer and don't want to report that he/she pointed out errors in Jones' paper and called it down.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
This is why I created the site. These questions just keep repeating and it's much easier to link...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
If a person can swing a sledge hammer and break apart concrete floors, what do you think a 32 story building landing on it would do? What about on the way down? Concrete and steel smashing into each other in the mother of all jack hammers. I could easily see the concrete getting smaller and smaller as the building collapse.
Grabbing at straws isn't going to give this CT lunacy any legs.
The near total pulverisation is what Hoffman has claimed all along, and I find his claim that due to the fineness of the dust, heating* occurred almost instantly to be eminently plausible. **
Recall that most of the concrete-related unexplained energy deficit that Hoffman calculated was due to the heating of the concrete, NOT the pulverisation.
As for your web site, I doubt I'll be looking at it. Your arguments tend to be shoddy, insulting, distortionist, and deceptive. Why should I expect anything different from your web site?
Anyway, why would you want little 'ole me to look at it? You can ask "Reality Check" to Really Check it out - he's a scientist, you know!!
Likewise, you shouldn't waste your time asking Hoffman or Professor Jones to look at your site. According to Scientist "Reality Check", they are "idiots", and doubtless wouldn't even understand it.
* Of course, he means heating AT THE SOURCE
** though I'd still like to see at least a calculation, and preferably some kind of experimental evidence; A far bigger issue is the lack of fluid hydrodynamical modeling. This lack makes Hoffman's approach a non-starter, in the minds of more serious critics like JayUtah at ApolloHoax.net
QUOTE
So, I wonder how many of the CT popes have or would like to run Jones' paper by a real engineering faculty member. To my knowledge none has. Gee whiz, boys and girls, why do you think that would be the case?
,,,,, and now I answer my own question.
1) Because they do not believe that engineers will agree with Jones for three reasons.
a ) Because the engineering community requires gov't funding and they don't want to rock the boat
b ) Because engineers stick together even if it means lieing
c) Because all engineers are 'in on it"
2) They don't really have the stength of conviction to try it.
3) They don't want the MIB knocking on their door later that evening
4) They have taken it to an engineer and don't want to report that he/she pointed out errors in Jones' paper and called it down.
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 28 2006, 05:36 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Feb 28 2006, 05:12 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 28 2006, 04:56 AM)
I recently viewed part of a video which re-iterated the observation of near-total pulverization of the concrete, by a well known source - Governor Pataki.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
This is why I created the site. These questions just keep repeating and it's much easier to link...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
If a person can swing a sledge hammer and break apart concrete floors, what do you think a 32 story building landing on it would do? What about on the way down? Concrete and steel smashing into each other in the mother of all jack hammers. I could easily see the concrete getting smaller and smaller as the building collapse.
Grabbing at straws isn't going to give this CT lunacy any legs.
The near total pulverisation is what Hoffman has claimed all along, and I find his claim that due to the fineness of the dust, heating* occurred almost instantly to be eminently plausible. **
Recall that most of the concrete-related unexplained energy deficit that Hoffman calculated was due to the heating of the concrete, NOT the pulverisation.
As for your web site, I doubt I'll be looking at it. Your arguments tend to be shoddy, insulting, distortionist, and deceptive. Why should I expect anything different from your web site?
Anyway, why would you want little 'ole me to look at it? You can ask "Reality Check" to Really Check it out - he's a scientist, you know!!
Likewise, you shouldn't waste your time asking Hoffman or Professor Jones to look at your site. According to Scientist "Reality Check", they are "idiots", and doubtless wouldn't even understand it.
* Of course, he means heating AT THE SOURCE
** though I'd still like to see at least a calculation, and preferably some kind of experimental evidence; A far bigger issue is the lack of fluid hydrodynamical modeling. This lack makes Hoffman's approach a non-starter, in the minds of more serious critics like JayUtah at ApolloHoax.net
I was going to save the space but oh well...
Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.
My best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustibles, 60% metal and other non-combustible items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.
There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents.
You should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newbie and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).
What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.
A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. But it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.
While a 600GJ bomb would take out ten blocks in any direction, the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theories (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that heat STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”
All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. It was also pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. This force was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. The STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.
Now, for the program:
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
#!/usr/bin/perl
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for 2 WTC)
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step
$p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far
$a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant)
$t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories)
$mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section
$rfc = 110 – $fc;# initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors
while($rfc > 0) {
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula
print(“Impact velocity for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v2, “n”);
$p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact
print(“Impulse delivered for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $p, “n”);
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact
print(“Impact kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1, “n”);
$fc++; # increment falling floor count
$mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print(“Velocity after impact for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v3, “n”);
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact
print(“Remaining kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke2, “n”);
$de += $ke1 – $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total
print(“The kinetic energy dissipated for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1 – $ke2, ”
n”);
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula
print(“The time spent collapsing story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $t1, “n”);
$t += $t1; # add step time to running total
$rfc—; # decrement remaining floor count
}
print(“The total time was ”, $t, “n”);
print(“The total energy dissipated during the collapse was ”, $de, “n”);
print(“The remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse was ”, $ke2, “n”
);
**END PROGRAM**
It’s a perl, you can download perl for just about anything from www.perl.org or somewhere they point. If you’re going to get involved in CS, somewhere you’re going to encounter perl, and now’s as good a time to learn it as any. I highly recommend the O’Reilly Press perl book which happens to be by the inventors of the language. Just so you can muddle your way through and derive the equations from the code above, * is multiplication, ** is raising to a power (and don’t forget that a fractional power is a root; so **0.5 is the square-root operation). The rest of the symbols are obvious, and the parentheses work the same way as they do in standard math notation. You should be aware that the single = in most languages simply ASSIGNS the value of what’s on the right to the thing on the left; usually, you’re required to put a single variable on the left of an =. The double == TESTS whether one value is equal to another, returning 1 or TRUE if it is, and 0 or FALSE if it is not.
You think calling people pope and saying they believe in fairy tales isn't "shoddy, insulting, distortionist, and deceptive"? Don't hate me because I don't sneak insults around like a bitch. Grow some balls and insult me like a man. Heh!
Hoffman's concrete heating requires that the resulting dust cloud be 1000 degrees yet no evidence of such a hot cloud can be found. I posted pictures of damaged vehicles and a poster that were all close to GZ but they are remarkable in that the vertical surfaces(ie. not covered in dust) are completely unscorched.
No 1000 degree cloud of dust = concrete not heated to the degree that Hoffman speculates.
It also equates to Hoffman being an idiot imho.
Hoffman's concrete heating requires that the resulting dust cloud be 1000 degrees yet no evidence of such a hot cloud can be found. I posted pictures of damaged vehicles and a poster that were all close to GZ but they are remarkable in that the vertical surfaces(ie. not covered in dust) are completely unscorched.
No 1000 degree cloud of dust = concrete not heated to the degree that Hoffman speculates.
It also equates to Hoffman being an idiot imho.
Heh! Faux posted a picture of a car which was so close to ground z it flipped over. The fires still had air in them. What do you think would have happened to the air in the tires if they were hit with 1000 d C? I would think it would have expaned until it popped like a balloon. Not to mention the tires would have melted...
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
Luketober.
Things ACCELERATE as they fall.
Thus at the START of the fall they would not be moving the same speed as ar the end. Thus you can't divide stories by time and come up with a per story time.
So while you might hear the first floors hitting (after a delay of a few seconds depending on your distance) as individual floors, since they aren't falling nearly as fast as freefall, pretty soon the CLOSER sound of the impacting debris would mask the sound of the later floors hitting more rapidly.
Arthur
Did anyone ever really think that the Schneibster was intelligent enough to make all this up?
Of course not. The Schneibster Army is the largest congregation of blithering idiots ever assembled in one mentally ill person's sick, lonely mind. He probably can't write a grocery list without copying it from somewhere.
I own the site. Heh!
Well, that explains why the site reads like it was written by a psychotic boob.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
This is why I created the site. These questions just keep repeating and it's much easier to link...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
If a person can swing a sledge hammer and break apart concrete floors, what do you think a 32 story building landing on it would do? What about on the way down? Concrete and steel smashing into each other in the mother of all jack hammers. I could easily see the concrete getting smaller and smaller as the building collapse.
Grabbing at straws isn't going to give this CT lunacy any legs.
The near total pulverisation is what Hoffman has claimed all along, and I find his claim that due to the fineness of the dust, heating* occurred almost instantly to be eminently plausible. **
Recall that most of the concrete-related unexplained energy deficit that Hoffman calculated was due to the heating of the concrete, NOT the pulverisation.
As for your web site, I doubt I'll be looking at it. Your arguments tend to be shoddy, insulting, distortionist, and deceptive. Why should I expect anything different from your web site?
Anyway, why would you want little 'ole me to look at it? You can ask "Reality Check" to Really Check it out - he's a scientist, you know!!
Likewise, you shouldn't waste your time asking Hoffman or Professor Jones to look at your site. According to Scientist "Reality Check", they are "idiots", and doubtless wouldn't even understand it.
* Of course, he means heating AT THE SOURCE
** though I'd still like to see at least a calculation, and preferably some kind of experimental evidence; A far bigger issue is the lack of fluid hydrodynamical modeling. This lack makes Hoffman's approach a non-starter, in the minds of more serious critics like JayUtah at ApolloHoax.net
I was going to save the space but oh well...
Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.
My best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustibles, 60% metal and other non-combustible items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.
There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents.
You should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newbie and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).
What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.
A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. But it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.
While a 600GJ bomb would take out ten blocks in any direction, the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theories (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that heat STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”
All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. It was also pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. This force was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. The STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.
Now, for the program:
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
#!/usr/bin/perl
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for 2 WTC)
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step
$p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far
$a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant)
$t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories)
$mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section
$rfc = 110 – $fc;# initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors
while($rfc > 0) {
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula
print(“Impact velocity for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v2, “n”);
$p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact
print(“Impulse delivered for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $p, “n”);
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact
print(“Impact kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1, “n”);
$fc++; # increment falling floor count
$mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print(“Velocity after impact for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v3, “n”);
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact
print(“Remaining kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke2, “n”);
$de += $ke1 – $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total
print(“The kinetic energy dissipated for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1 – $ke2, ”
n”);
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula
print(“The time spent collapsing story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $t1, “n”);
$t += $t1; # add step time to running total
$rfc—; # decrement remaining floor count
}
print(“The total time was ”, $t, “n”);
print(“The total energy dissipated during the collapse was ”, $de, “n”);
print(“The remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse was ”, $ke2, “n”
);
**END PROGRAM**
It’s a perl, you can download perl for just about anything from www.perl.org or somewhere they point. If you’re going to get involved in CS, somewhere you’re going to encounter perl, and now’s as good a time to learn it as any. I highly recommend the O’Reilly Press perl book which happens to be by the inventors of the language. Just so you can muddle your way through and derive the equations from the code above, * is multiplication, ** is raising to a power (and don’t forget that a fractional power is a root; so **0.5 is the square-root operation). The rest of the symbols are obvious, and the parentheses work the same way as they do in standard math notation. You should be aware that the single = in most languages simply ASSIGNS the value of what’s on the right to the thing on the left; usually, you’re required to put a single variable on the left of an =. The double == TESTS whether one value is equal to another, returning 1 or TRUE if it is, and 0 or FALSE if it is not.
You think calling people pope and saying they believe in fairy tales isn't "shoddy, insulting, distortionist, and deceptive"? Don't hate me because I don't sneak insults around like a bitch. Grow some balls and insult me like a man. Heh!
QUOTE
Recall that most of the concrete-related unexplained energy deficit that Hoffman calculated was due to the heating of the concrete, NOT the pulverisation.
Hoffman's concrete heating requires that the resulting dust cloud be 1000 degrees yet no evidence of such a hot cloud can be found. I posted pictures of damaged vehicles and a poster that were all close to GZ but they are remarkable in that the vertical surfaces(ie. not covered in dust) are completely unscorched.
No 1000 degree cloud of dust = concrete not heated to the degree that Hoffman speculates.
It also equates to Hoffman being an idiot imho.
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 28 2006, 12:56 AM)
I recently viewed part of a video which re-iterated the observation of near-total pulverization of the concrete, by a well known source - Governor Pataki.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
Pulverization is NOT the issue.
Hoffman's paper is based upon an average size of 60 MICRONS.
The dot at the end of this sentence is over 600 microns.
So any person describing material of that size would say it is pulverized.
But since volume of a sphere is a function of the cube of the radius, the 600 micron particle has a volume 1,000 times larger than a 60 micron particle.
Which affects the amount of ENERGY required to pulverize it greatly.
Now, going back to the articles about the WTC dust, not ONE of them was designed to determine the average size of the material from the collapse of the WTC towers. They were HEALTH studies and so focused on what COULD be breathed in. Thus the SITES they chose were based on this issue. Thus they chose to get dust from PROTECTED SITES and AWAY from Ground Zero. Thus this was the stuff that WAS the smallest.
From the pictures I posted earlier it seems quite clear that the material around Ground Zero accounted for the majority of the debris and it was in fact FAR FAR greater average size than even 600 microns.
Thus Hoffman's entire analysis is flawed.
Which is why there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow.
Arthur
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
Pulverization is NOT the issue.
Hoffman's paper is based upon an average size of 60 MICRONS.
The dot at the end of this sentence is over 600 microns.
So any person describing material of that size would say it is pulverized.
But since volume of a sphere is a function of the cube of the radius, the 600 micron particle has a volume 1,000 times larger than a 60 micron particle.
Which affects the amount of ENERGY required to pulverize it greatly.
Now, going back to the articles about the WTC dust, not ONE of them was designed to determine the average size of the material from the collapse of the WTC towers. They were HEALTH studies and so focused on what COULD be breathed in. Thus the SITES they chose were based on this issue. Thus they chose to get dust from PROTECTED SITES and AWAY from Ground Zero. Thus this was the stuff that WAS the smallest.
From the pictures I posted earlier it seems quite clear that the material around Ground Zero accounted for the majority of the debris and it was in fact FAR FAR greater average size than even 600 microns.
Thus Hoffman's entire analysis is flawed.
Which is why there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow.
Arthur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 28 2006, 05:46 AM)
QUOTE
Recall that most of the concrete-related unexplained energy deficit that Hoffman calculated was due to the heating of the concrete, NOT the pulverisation.
Hoffman's concrete heating requires that the resulting dust cloud be 1000 degrees yet no evidence of such a hot cloud can be found. I posted pictures of damaged vehicles and a poster that were all close to GZ but they are remarkable in that the vertical surfaces(ie. not covered in dust) are completely unscorched.
No 1000 degree cloud of dust = concrete not heated to the degree that Hoffman speculates.
It also equates to Hoffman being an idiot imho.
Heh! Faux posted a picture of a car which was so close to ground z it flipped over. The fires still had air in them. What do you think would have happened to the air in the tires if they were hit with 1000 d C? I would think it would have expaned until it popped like a balloon. Not to mention the tires would have melted...
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 28 2006, 12:41 AM)
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
Luketober.
Things ACCELERATE as they fall.
Thus at the START of the fall they would not be moving the same speed as ar the end. Thus you can't divide stories by time and come up with a per story time.
So while you might hear the first floors hitting (after a delay of a few seconds depending on your distance) as individual floors, since they aren't falling nearly as fast as freefall, pretty soon the CLOSER sound of the impacting debris would mask the sound of the later floors hitting more rapidly.
Arthur
Foxx also postd photos of a nearby building scoured by baseball sized chunks of concrete. A base ball is many orders of magnitude larger than 60 microns
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 28 2006, 05:17 AM)
I have 2 questions for my fellow "Conspiracy Theorists"
Q #1) Has anybody following this thread placed Jones' paper, together with a CD of the collapse of WTC7, into the hands of your local civil engineering faculty?
IMO, anybody who thinks slinging mud with the "popes" is in anyway superior to approaching "the big boys" is kidding themselves.
Q #2) Note well that none of the popes (with the exception of yesitdid, if you consider him to be a pope) has EVER encouraged us to run the technical papers by engineering/physics faculty. *
Gee whiz, boys and girls, why do you think that would be the case? This is NOT a rhetorical question. I'd like some of the regular, Unofficial-Conspiracy-Theorist posters to state their answer to my question.
Hopefully I will be able to distribute some "CARE packages" myself in a few weeks. I had Monday off last week, and was planning to do so then, but slept during most of it.
* Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
No because Jones paper is far too dishonest to be taken seriously. Its a paper full of misquotations, misrepresentations, and as mentioned before he even had to use photoshop to adjust one of his photos.
One of my favorite blunders by Jones.
Jones states: (Section 4)
"Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports."
Yet elsewhere in Jones paper (2. High Temperatures and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel) ...right before he misquotes Edgar.... he mentions a temp. of approaching 1000C.
"This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)"
So by Jones own paper we know the temp didn't even come close to 2860C and if you read the report you can see the steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850 C and the slag at about 940C
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
Oh and when you pack that CD with the building 7 footage make sure they see this
Jones states:Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos.
..yet everyone can see Jones screwed up.
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Loop_3.avi
Q #1) Has anybody following this thread placed Jones' paper, together with a CD of the collapse of WTC7, into the hands of your local civil engineering faculty?
IMO, anybody who thinks slinging mud with the "popes" is in anyway superior to approaching "the big boys" is kidding themselves.
Q #2) Note well that none of the popes (with the exception of yesitdid, if you consider him to be a pope) has EVER encouraged us to run the technical papers by engineering/physics faculty. *
Gee whiz, boys and girls, why do you think that would be the case? This is NOT a rhetorical question. I'd like some of the regular, Unofficial-Conspiracy-Theorist posters to state their answer to my question.
Hopefully I will be able to distribute some "CARE packages" myself in a few weeks. I had Monday off last week, and was planning to do so then, but slept during most of it.
* Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
No because Jones paper is far too dishonest to be taken seriously. Its a paper full of misquotations, misrepresentations, and as mentioned before he even had to use photoshop to adjust one of his photos.
One of my favorite blunders by Jones.
Jones states: (Section 4)
"Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports."
Yet elsewhere in Jones paper (2. High Temperatures and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel) ...right before he misquotes Edgar.... he mentions a temp. of approaching 1000C.
"This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)"
So by Jones own paper we know the temp didn't even come close to 2860C and if you read the report you can see the steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850 C and the slag at about 940C
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
Oh and when you pack that CD with the building 7 footage make sure they see this
Jones states:Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos.
..yet everyone can see Jones screwed up.
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Loop_3.avi
QUOTE (Commen sense+Feb 28 2006, 05:02 AM)
QUOTE (Guest_Bill+Feb 28 2006, 04:46 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 27 2006, 07:11 PM)
Did anyone ever really think that the Schneibster was intelligent enough to make all this up?
Of course not. The Schneibster Army is the largest congregation of blithering idiots ever assembled in one mentally ill person's sick, lonely mind. He probably can't write a grocery list without copying it from somewhere.
I own the site. Heh!
Well, that explains why the site reads like it was written by a psychotic boob.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2006, 09:48 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 28 2006, 12:56 AM)
I recently viewed part of a video which re-iterated the observation of near-total pulverization of the concrete, by a well known source - Governor Pataki.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
Pulverization is NOT the issue.
Hoffman's paper is based upon an average size of 60 MICRONS.
The dot at the end of this sentence is over 600 microns.
So any person describing material of that size would say it is pulverized.
But since volume of a sphere is a function of the cube of the radius, the 600 micron particle has a volume 1,000 times larger than a 60 micron particle.
Which affects the amount of ENERGY required to pulverize it greatly.
Now, going back to the articles about the WTC dust, not ONE of them was designed to determine the average size of the material from the collapse of the WTC towers. They were HEALTH studies and so focused on what COULD be breathed in. Thus the SITES they chose were based on this issue. Thus they chose to get dust from PROTECTED SITES and AWAY from Ground Zero. Thus this was the stuff that WAS the smallest.
From the pictures I posted earlier it seems quite clear that the material around Ground Zero accounted for the majority of the debris and it was in fact FAR FAR greater average size than even 600 microns.
Thus Hoffman's entire analysis is flawed.
Which is why there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow.
Arthur
Pulverization is not the issue?
Only if you have absolutely no curiosity or an agenda.
Oh and when you pack that CD with the building 7 footage make sure they see this
Jones states:Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos.
..yet everyone can see Jones screwed up.
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Loop_3.avi
Personally, I don’t think professor Jones cares about puffs of smoke. He just wants people to see the obvious demolition of Building 7 and Official conspiracy theorist are doing the Job for Him. It sure didn’t take puffs of smoke for me to realize something was wrong with the official collapse explanation.
Oh and when you pack that CD with the building 7 footage make sure they see this
Jones states:Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos.
..yet everyone can see Jones screwed up.
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Loop_3.avi
Personally, I don’t think professor Jones cares about puffs of smoke. He just wants people to see the obvious demolition of Building 7 and Official conspiracy theorist are doing the Job for Him. It sure didn’t take puffs of smoke for me to realize something was defiantly wrong with the collapse explanation.
The "puffs of smoke" are his so called "squibs". One of the many problems with Jones is the timing. Jones thought the "squibs" started first, then the upper floors started to move. I guess he got a little too eager and forgot to look at the larger videos of the collapse.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
Pulverization is NOT the issue.
Hoffman's paper is based upon an average size of 60 MICRONS.
The dot at the end of this sentence is over 600 microns.
So any person describing material of that size would say it is pulverized.
But since volume of a sphere is a function of the cube of the radius, the 600 micron particle has a volume 1,000 times larger than a 60 micron particle.
Which affects the amount of ENERGY required to pulverize it greatly.
Now, going back to the articles about the WTC dust, not ONE of them was designed to determine the average size of the material from the collapse of the WTC towers. They were HEALTH studies and so focused on what COULD be breathed in. Thus the SITES they chose were based on this issue. Thus they chose to get dust from PROTECTED SITES and AWAY from Ground Zero. Thus this was the stuff that WAS the smallest.
From the pictures I posted earlier it seems quite clear that the material around Ground Zero accounted for the majority of the debris and it was in fact FAR FAR greater average size than even 600 microns.
Thus Hoffman's entire analysis is flawed.
Which is why there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow.
Arthur
Pulverization is not the issue?
Only if you have absolutely no curiosity or an agenda.
QUOTE (ScottS+Feb 27 2006, 10:42 PM)
Oh and when you pack that CD with the building 7 footage make sure they see this
Jones states:Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos.
..yet everyone can see Jones screwed up.
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Loop_3.avi
Personally, I don’t think professor Jones cares about puffs of smoke. He just wants people to see the obvious demolition of Building 7 and Official conspiracy theorist are doing the Job for Him. It sure didn’t take puffs of smoke for me to realize something was wrong with the official collapse explanation.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 28 2006, 07:55 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Feb 27 2006, 10:42 PM)
Oh and when you pack that CD with the building 7 footage make sure they see this
Jones states:Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos.
..yet everyone can see Jones screwed up.
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Loop_3.avi
Personally, I don’t think professor Jones cares about puffs of smoke. He just wants people to see the obvious demolition of Building 7 and Official conspiracy theorist are doing the Job for Him. It sure didn’t take puffs of smoke for me to realize something was defiantly wrong with the collapse explanation.
The "puffs of smoke" are his so called "squibs". One of the many problems with Jones is the timing. Jones thought the "squibs" started first, then the upper floors started to move. I guess he got a little too eager and forgot to look at the larger videos of the collapse.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
BWAAAAhahahahaha !!!
That's good, Schneiby... Nice debunking site
Well, I guess that proves a couple of things, doesn't it.
It's good to know the Schneibster and his band of merry men ... are doing their best to stomp out the 'terrorist sympathizers'.
Any particular reason you used the 'time-lapse' schematic of the fires integrated over the entire period on your fire page?
Perhaps to enlighten?
I think it could easily lead to confusion or misinformation for those who haven't read the documents you are referring to.
It certainly could fool a lot of people.
Perhaps it was just a simple mistake on your part.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/fire00a.jpg
I'll get back to this issue when I get everything put together, but it's good you put that site up... it gives me something to work with.
----------------
One of my problems is that I have too many files and am not a great file-organizer (along with having to work in the real world) which also cuts down on my available computer time.
----------------
RC, I will apologize for forgetting that you were on limited bandwidth. Having forgotten about that I may have been a little nasty in my frustration.
Given that you haven't seen the videos that we have been discussing I can understand how you are not seeing what we see. Still photos don't really give the full effect. One needs to see the FLOW we are taking about here. I will try to remember that your visualizations are not enhanced by being able to access the NIST or FEMA documents. Most of these are in adobe format and some do not allow cut & paste for easy dissemination, so I have transcribed the following pages from NIST for your benefit. The 'links' for the actual documents are below.
I finally found one of the items which I have been desperately looking for since the molten metal video popped up. I knew I had it saved somewhere.
jpeg images of the NIST pages 'cached'...
page 34 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2a.jpg
page 35 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b.jpg
-----------------
North East Corner of WTC 2
9:45 a.m. to Collapse of WTC 2 at 9:58:59 a.m.
Did someone say puffs of smoke?
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Actually, according to Video 1 (below) I see the time of flow being closer to ~ 30 seconds, but who's really counting seconds ?
If the collapse time quoted by NIST is at 9:58:59 a.m.... and these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust were starting to appear by 9:52 a.m.... according to my calculations, that would mean these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust' would be occuring preceeding the collapse, wouldn't it ?
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Actually, according to Video 1 (below) I see the time of flow being closer to ~ 30 seconds, but who's really counting seconds ?
If the collapse time quoted by NIST is at 9:58:59 a.m.... and these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust were starting to appear by 9:52 a.m.... according to my calculations, that would mean these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust' would be occuring preceeding the collapse, wouldn't it ?
Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location prior to the collapse of the tower. Several were accompanied by puffs of dust and smoke that were now occuring frequently.
The composition of the flowing material can only be hypothesized, but it is considered likely that it was molten aluminum that came from aircraft debris located immediately above on the 81st floor and had been heated by the fire burning on that floor. Shortly after 9:53 a.m. the fire that had been burning on the eastern edge of the 81st floor since the aircraft impact suddenly died down, revealing the windows above on the 82nd floor.
A hanging object was visible through these windows that appeared to be a dislodged corner section of the 83rd floor slab. The hanging objects present in and near the cold spot were also visible in images taken during the period.
At 9:58:59 a.m. WTC began to collapse. Videos show that the only place flames were pushed out of windows on the north face was from the burning area near the western edge of the 79th floor.
A fourth short-lived (again roughly a minute) release of heavy smoke and flame from windows on the 79th and 80th floors of the east face occured around 9:45 a.m. Three additional, somewhat less intense, releases lasting similar lengths of time around 9:47 a.m., around 9:52 a.m., and just before 9:56 a.m. Smoke puffs, similar to those seen earlier, occured multiple times during this period.
At the start of the period the fire located in the center of the northern half of the face on the 79th floor continued to burn vigorously, only dying down near the end.
A similar burning area became visible on the 80th floor just to the south of the fire on the 79th floor around 9:55 a.m. Much of this area had been hidden up to this time by smoke coming from below. A substantial fire continued to burn on the 82nd floor near the northern edge of the face. The fire in the northeast corner was generally gently burning, but would occasionally flare up. During the period the position of the hanging object visible through the windows on the 82nd floor moved again, with the northermost window where it first became visible shifting slightly to the north.
A prominent feature on the east face during the period was the inward bowing of the the outer wall. This can be seen clearly over the 79th to 82nd floors in
Figure 2-11 which was taken less than a minute before the collapse started.
"During the 20 seconds prior to the collapse a large number of pieces of debris fell from the northern sides of the 80th and 81st floors. The falling debris coincided with a heavy flow of molten metal from the north face.
When WTC 2 collapsed very little flame was expelled from the east face windows. Based upon observations elsewhere on the two towers, regions of intense burning would have been expected to generate short-lived jets of flames. Their absence suggest that large fires were not burning near the face at the time of collapse."
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Video 1 {Length - 2:49}
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
Video 2 {Length - 0:47}
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
Question :
If "large fires were NOT burning" near the northeast corner, as evidenced by the above videos and the lack of flames expelled at the time of the collapse, what was precipitating the "heavy flow of molten metal" from this corner of the building where the fires had all but died out ?
Some (including NIST spokespersons) have speculated that it might have been molten aluminum.
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
It certainly looks to me like some large structural beam which is 'melting' and collapsing, yet ... very little fire.
Pulverization is NOT the issue.
Hoffman's paper is based upon an average size of 60 MICRONS.
The dot at the end of this sentence is over 600 microns.
So any person describing material of that size would say it is pulverized.
But since volume of a sphere is a function of the cube of the radius, the 600 micron particle has a volume 1,000 times larger than a 60 micron particle.
Which affects the amount of ENERGY required to pulverize it greatly.
Now, going back to the articles about the WTC dust, not ONE of them was designed to determine the average size of the material from the collapse of the WTC towers. They were HEALTH studies and so focused on what COULD be breathed in. Thus the SITES they chose were based on this issue. Thus they chose to get dust from PROTECTED SITES and AWAY from Ground Zero. Thus this was the stuff that WAS the smallest.
From the pictures I posted earlier it seems quite clear that the material around Ground Zero accounted for the majority of the debris and it was in fact FAR FAR greater average size than even 600 microns.
Thus Hoffman's entire analysis is flawed.
Which is why there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow.
Arthur
Pulverization is not the issue?
Only if you have absolutely no curiosity or an agenda.
Yeah,
Did you NOT expect a large cloud of dust?
The QUESTIONS ARE:
Is it PYROCLASTIC?
Is the AVERAGE particle size of the crushed concrete 60 microns.
The rest is just handwaving.
Now Hoffman suggests that the AVERAGE temp of the cloud is over 1000 K. Which would TORCH everything it touches and kill any living thing that it overtakes.
THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.
As seen by the overhead picture, the majority of the dust cloud is spreading, but it is NOT RISING like the central column, which IT WOULD DO if it was even 500 K.
Now already on this thread we have posted many pictures of the debris pile and its very clear that not everything was pulverized.
Hoffman is VERY NON-SPECIFIC as to how he gets the 60 micron size, and while he cites Lioy he then says "Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size",
But a reading of the literature, including Lioy, finds NO SUPPORT for that assumption about AVERAGE CONCRETE PARTICLE SIZE. The tests that Lioy did were not designed to, nor would they address the question and in fact were done in a way that would CLEARLY limit the particle size of their dust sample.
Unfortunately for Hoffman, this is the KEY to his hypothesis.
So, if you have ANY EVIDENCE that either of these assertions (avg size of concrete and average temp of cloud) by Hoffman are correct then:
POST THEM.
Otherwise YOU are the one with an AGENDA.
Arthur
Pulverization is NOT the issue.
Hoffman's paper is based upon an average size of 60 MICRONS.
The dot at the end of this sentence is over 600 microns.
So any person describing material of that size would say it is pulverized.
But since volume of a sphere is a function of the cube of the radius, the 600 micron particle has a volume 1,000 times larger than a 60 micron particle.
Which affects the amount of ENERGY required to pulverize it greatly.
Now, going back to the articles about the WTC dust, not ONE of them was designed to determine the average size of the material from the collapse of the WTC towers. They were HEALTH studies and so focused on what COULD be breathed in. Thus the SITES they chose were based on this issue. Thus they chose to get dust from PROTECTED SITES and AWAY from Ground Zero. Thus this was the stuff that WAS the smallest.
From the pictures I posted earlier it seems quite clear that the material around Ground Zero accounted for the majority of the debris and it was in fact FAR FAR greater average size than even 600 microns.
Thus Hoffman's entire analysis is flawed.
Which is why there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow.
Arthur
Pulverization is not the issue?
Only if you have absolutely no curiosity or an agenda.
Yeah,
Did you NOT expect a large cloud of dust?
The QUESTIONS ARE:
Is it PYROCLASTIC?
Is the AVERAGE particle size of the crushed concrete 60 microns.
The rest is just handwaving.
Now Hoffman suggests that the AVERAGE temp of the cloud is over 1000 K. Which would TORCH everything it touches and kill any living thing that it overtakes.
THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.
As seen by the overhead picture, the majority of the dust cloud is spreading, but it is NOT RISING, which IT WOULD DO if it was even 500 K.
Now already on this thread we have posted many pictures of the debris pile and its very clear that not everything was pulverized.
Hoffman states that he gets the 60 micron size from the literature, but a reading of the literature, finds NO SUPPORT for that LEAP.
If you have ANY EVIDENCE that either of these assertions by Hoffman are correct then:
POST THEM.
Otherwise YOU are the one with an AGENDA.
Arthur
I find it fascinating that people who write books and web sites who get donations and moneys from traffic are accusing people on a physics board of having an "agenda". It's blatantly obvious who has the agenda here.
Again, Thanks to Faux for the chuckle and calling me Schneibster. I especially would like to thank him for the compliment...
Since I proved it was my site using Schneibster and RC's post, I'm sure I speak for them when I say...
THANK YOU
BWAAAAhahahahaha !!!
That's good, Schneiby... Nice debunking site
Well, I guess that proves a couple of things, doesn't it.
It's good to know the Schneibster and his band of merry men ... are doing their best to stomp out the 'terrorist sympathizers'.
Any particular reason you used the 'time-lapse' schematic of the fires integrated over the entire period on your fire page?
Perhaps to enlighten?
I think it could easily lead to confusion or misinformation for those who haven't read the documents you are referring to.
It certainly could fool a lot of people.
Perhaps it was just a simple mistake on your part.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/fire00a.jpg
I'll get back to this issue when I get everything put together, but it's good you put that site up... it gives me something to work with.
----------------
One of my problems is that I have too many files and am not a great file-organizer (along with having to work in the real world) which also cuts down on my available computer time.
----------------
RC, I will apologize for forgetting that you were on limited bandwidth. Having forgotten about that I may have been a little nasty in my frustration.
Given that you haven't seen the videos that we have been discussing I can understand how you are not seeing what we see. Still photos don't really give the full effect. One needs to see the FLOW we are taking about here. I will try to remember that your visualizations are not enhanced by being able to access the NIST or FEMA documents. Most of these are in adobe format and some do not allow cut & paste for easy dissemination, so I have transcribed the following pages from NIST for your benefit. The 'links' for the actual documents are below.
I finally found one of the items which I have been desperately looking for since the molten metal video popped up. I knew I had it saved somewhere.
jpeg images of the NIST pages 'cached'...
page 34 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2a.jpg
page 35 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b.jpg
-----------------
North East Corner of WTC 2
9:45 a.m. to Collapse of WTC 2 at 9:58:59 a.m.
Did someone say puffs of smoke?
QUOTE
Near the start of the period several small fires were observed for the first time near the center of the cold spot on the north face at the 81st & 82nd floors. Fires elsewhere on the face were generally dying down at this time. During the period, the fire burning on the 79th floor continued to spread to the west. By the time of collapse, the flames were approaching, but had not yet reached, the west face. Around 9:54 a.m. a fire grew just to the west of the cold spot on the 82nd floor, and began to spread westward, covering 8 windows by the time of collapse. The fire that had earlier spread in the same direction on the 83rd floor did not appear to migrate farther. A small spot fire was observed near the center of the 84th floor, suggesting that the fire on the 83rd floor had spread upward. Closeup photographs and videos during the period revealed a distinct outward bulge of the steel columns in the vicinity of the debris pile in the center of the 79th floor.
Just before 9:52 a.m. puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location. This flow lasted approximately 4 seconds before subsiding.
Just before 9:52 a.m. puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location. This flow lasted approximately 4 seconds before subsiding.
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Actually, according to Video 1 (below) I see the time of flow being closer to ~ 30 seconds, but who's really counting seconds ?
If the collapse time quoted by NIST is at 9:58:59 a.m.... and these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust were starting to appear by 9:52 a.m.... according to my calculations, that would mean these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust' would be occuring preceeding the collapse, wouldn't it ?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Near the start of the period several small fires were observed for the first time near the center of the cold spot on the north face at the 81st & 82nd floors. Fires elsewhere on the face were generally dying down at this time. During the period, the fire burning on the 79th floor continued to spread to the west. By the time of collapse, the flames were approaching, but had not yet reached, the west face. Around 9:54 a.m. a fire grew just to the west of the cold spot on the 82nd floor, and began to spread westward, covering 8 windows by the time of collapse. The fire that had earlier spread in the same direction on the 83rd floor did not appear to migrate farther. A small spot fire was observed near the center of the 84th floor, suggesting that the fire on the 83rd floor had spread upward. Closeup photographs and videos during the period revealed a distinct outward bulge of the steel columns in the vicinity of the debris pile in the center of the 79th floor. Just before 9:52 a.m. puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location. This flow lasted approximately 4 seconds before subsiding. |
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Actually, according to Video 1 (below) I see the time of flow being closer to ~ 30 seconds, but who's really counting seconds ?
If the collapse time quoted by NIST is at 9:58:59 a.m.... and these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust were starting to appear by 9:52 a.m.... according to my calculations, that would mean these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust' would be occuring preceeding the collapse, wouldn't it ?
Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location prior to the collapse of the tower. Several were accompanied by puffs of dust and smoke that were now occuring frequently.
The composition of the flowing material can only be hypothesized, but it is considered likely that it was molten aluminum that came from aircraft debris located immediately above on the 81st floor and had been heated by the fire burning on that floor. Shortly after 9:53 a.m. the fire that had been burning on the eastern edge of the 81st floor since the aircraft impact suddenly died down, revealing the windows above on the 82nd floor.
A hanging object was visible through these windows that appeared to be a dislodged corner section of the 83rd floor slab. The hanging objects present in and near the cold spot were also visible in images taken during the period.
At 9:58:59 a.m. WTC began to collapse. Videos show that the only place flames were pushed out of windows on the north face was from the burning area near the western edge of the 79th floor.
A fourth short-lived (again roughly a minute) release of heavy smoke and flame from windows on the 79th and 80th floors of the east face occured around 9:45 a.m. Three additional, somewhat less intense, releases lasting similar lengths of time around 9:47 a.m., around 9:52 a.m., and just before 9:56 a.m. Smoke puffs, similar to those seen earlier, occured multiple times during this period.
At the start of the period the fire located in the center of the northern half of the face on the 79th floor continued to burn vigorously, only dying down near the end.
A similar burning area became visible on the 80th floor just to the south of the fire on the 79th floor around 9:55 a.m. Much of this area had been hidden up to this time by smoke coming from below. A substantial fire continued to burn on the 82nd floor near the northern edge of the face. The fire in the northeast corner was generally gently burning, but would occasionally flare up. During the period the position of the hanging object visible through the windows on the 82nd floor moved again, with the northermost window where it first became visible shifting slightly to the north.
A prominent feature on the east face during the period was the inward bowing of the the outer wall. This can be seen clearly over the 79th to 82nd floors in
Figure 2-11 which was taken less than a minute before the collapse started.
"During the 20 seconds prior to the collapse a large number of pieces of debris fell from the northern sides of the 80th and 81st floors. The falling debris coincided with a heavy flow of molten metal from the north face.
When WTC 2 collapsed very little flame was expelled from the east face windows. Based upon observations elsewhere on the two towers, regions of intense burning would have been expected to generate short-lived jets of flames. Their absence suggest that large fires were not burning near the face at the time of collapse."
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Video 1 {Length - 2:49}
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
Video 2 {Length - 0:47}
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
Question :
If "large fires were NOT burning" near the northeast corner, as evidenced by the above videos and the lack of flames expelled at the time of the collapse, what was precipitating the "heavy flow of molten metal" from this corner of the building where the fires had all but died out ?
Some (including NIST spokespersons) have speculated that it might have been molten aluminum.
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
QUOTE
"A hanging object was visible through these windows that appeared to be a dislodged corner section of the 83rd floor slab. The hanging objects present in and near the cold spot were also visible in images taken during the period."
It certainly looks to me like some large structural beam which is 'melting' and collapsing, yet ... very little fire.
In reply to RC who asked for an MPEG of the Camera Planet video, try this:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.mpg
The Scholars group is/are working on more papers and doubtless people will deny and ridicule the evidence in them, as they have the simple facts of free-fall/near free fall (the attitude to which still kind of baffles me really). There are a couple of other items of physical evidence being discussed - and I guess they may have already gone through the "vitriol and ridicule mill" in this list of 6000+ replies - I just haven't had chance to read all of this.
I think the most significant evidence to come to light which again supports CD is the above video. Towards the end of the clip, there seems to be quite a large quantity of orange material coming out, the camera zooms to the helicopter, then back to the collapse. How strange.
Prof Jones has posted a reply to Greenings ideas re Aluminium reaction. This is posted on st911.org, in case no one has already posted the link:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc
For anyone who wants to hear Prof Jim Fetzer, Prof Morgan Reynolds and Prof Griffin's broadcast, use this link:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/...2023%202006.mp3
19.2 megs, 111 mins or so playback.
What interested me about the broadcast were the callers at the end - as I recall, there were at least 2 who just politicised the issue. A shame. "Ha - that's the science of a Democrat!" (Yes, I know they didn't say that, but that seemed to be the attiitude.)
C2C's summary here:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/02/23.html
If anyone wants to look at Steve Jones USVC Presentation, try this page:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.mpg
The Scholars group is/are working on more papers and doubtless people will deny and ridicule the evidence in them, as they have the simple facts of free-fall/near free fall (the attitude to which still kind of baffles me really). There are a couple of other items of physical evidence being discussed - and I guess they may have already gone through the "vitriol and ridicule mill" in this list of 6000+ replies - I just haven't had chance to read all of this.
I think the most significant evidence to come to light which again supports CD is the above video. Towards the end of the clip, there seems to be quite a large quantity of orange material coming out, the camera zooms to the helicopter, then back to the collapse. How strange.
Prof Jones has posted a reply to Greenings ideas re Aluminium reaction. This is posted on st911.org, in case no one has already posted the link:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc
For anyone who wants to hear Prof Jim Fetzer, Prof Morgan Reynolds and Prof Griffin's broadcast, use this link:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/...2023%202006.mp3
19.2 megs, 111 mins or so playback.
What interested me about the broadcast were the callers at the end - as I recall, there were at least 2 who just politicised the issue. A shame. "Ha - that's the science of a Democrat!" (Yes, I know they didn't say that, but that seemed to be the attiitude.)
C2C's summary here:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/02/23.html
If anyone wants to look at Steve Jones USVC Presentation, try this page:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/
Some (including NIST spokespersons) have speculated that it might have been molten aluminum.
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
So do I.
It could not have been aluminium, because it was the wrong colour. Aluminium is silver, even when melted.
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far. Any other suggestions.
Gordon.
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
So do I.
It could not have been aluminium, because it was the wrong colour. Aluminium is silver, even when melted.
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far. Any other suggestions.
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 28 2006, 12:07 AM)
The glowing material emptying out the northeast corner appears to be a metal. It doesn't fly about like embers from a textile fire, suggesting it was fairly dense. The globules appear to keep glowing as they fall which would be expected for a metal which have high heat capacity. Most likely it's aluminum. It appears to be orange hot, perhaps around 800-1000C. Molten steel would have appeared even brighter.
Pure aluminum melts at 660C and boils at 2519C, so molten pure aluminum can be anywhere between 660C and 2519C.
I agree with your reasons and what you say regarding it being a metal, but aluminium retains its characteristic silver colour when melted. It does not conform to the colour chart as other metals do. This is one of the reasons that it is difficult to weld.
We should also note that when spatter is given off when welding or during forging or other high temperature operations, the colour does not display the same white hot appearance of its molten or near molten parent for a long period of time. The action of the spatter in breaking up the mass into smaller pieces thus exposing a larger surface area to the cooling ambient temperature. The surface area quickly exhibits a colour indicating lower than molten temperatures. This effect is most obvious on a small scale with electric arc welding and spot welding robots come to mind. On a larger scale in foundries, for instance, the spatter can display further white flashes as pieces or globules collide with the floor [eg] and break up exposing the still white cores.
So the questions we must ask ourselves are where could the metal come from and what are the possible causes of its elevated temperature and its action?
Thermite or a thermite like substance has been proposed as an explanation of the presence of a molten metal, and the general appearance and movement of the metal would support the contention that it is undergoing some form of chemical reaction.
Further support for the theory would be the fact that the collapse was initiated at or around that point, and thermite would have the effect of inducing collapse at or around the point of action.
Can anyone suggest another possible metal?
Can anyone suggest another possible reaction to explain the evident temperatures?
Can anyone identify any other mechanical or chemical processes involved?
Can anyone produce any evidence or reasoning to refute the proposal or call any aspect into question?
Can anyone produce any corroborative evidence or reasoning?
Gordon
Aluminum tends to look silver at its melting point because its melts at 660C, which is just barely glowing. Steel melts around 1500C, so it's not going to look silver at its melting point but rather a bright yellow-white. Molten aluminum at 800C will have an red-orange glow unless there is a slag over it. If you pour a pot of aluminum at 800C, you are going to see red-orange.
There's nothing inconsistent with aluminum being at 800C and pouring out a window on WTC2 with a red-orange color. The fires were hot enough to bring it to that temperature. It's possible there may have been thermite reactions occurring between the aluminum and building materials that raised the temperature of the aluminum higher than what the fires alone could have produced.
Some globules could have had a thin slag on them which got removed when they collided with each other or the facade. An analogous thing happens when you see charcoals in a pit that appear ash-colored but then appear red-orange when they are disturbed. I don't have a high resolution version of the molten material coming out of WTC2 which makes it diffifcult to see what's going on exactly.
Pure aluminum melts at 660C and boils at 2519C, so molten pure aluminum can be anywhere between 660C and 2519C.
I agree with your reasons and what you say regarding it being a metal, but aluminium retains its characteristic silver colour when melted. It does not conform to the colour chart as other metals do. This is one of the reasons that it is difficult to weld.
We should also note that when spatter is given off when welding or during forging or other high temperature operations, the colour does not display the same white hot appearance of its molten or near molten parent for a long period of time. The action of the spatter in breaking up the mass into smaller pieces thus exposing a larger surface area to the cooling ambient temperature. The surface area quickly exhibits a colour indicating lower than molten temperatures. This effect is most obvious on a small scale with electric arc welding and spot welding robots come to mind. On a larger scale in foundries, for instance, the spatter can display further white flashes as pieces or globules collide with the floor [eg] and break up exposing the still white cores.
So the questions we must ask ourselves are where could the metal come from and what are the possible causes of its elevated temperature and its action?
Thermite or a thermite like substance has been proposed as an explanation of the presence of a molten metal, and the general appearance and movement of the metal would support the contention that it is undergoing some form of chemical reaction.
Further support for the theory would be the fact that the collapse was initiated at or around that point, and thermite would have the effect of inducing collapse at or around the point of action.
Can anyone suggest another possible metal?
Can anyone suggest another possible reaction to explain the evident temperatures?
Can anyone identify any other mechanical or chemical processes involved?
Can anyone produce any evidence or reasoning to refute the proposal or call any aspect into question?
Can anyone produce any corroborative evidence or reasoning?
Gordon
Aluminum tends to look silver at its melting point because its melts at 660C, which is just barely glowing. Steel melts around 1500C, so it's not going to look silver at its melting point but rather a bright yellow-white. Molten aluminum at 800C will have an red-orange glow unless there is a slag over it. If you pour a pot of aluminum at 800C, you are going to see red-orange.
There's nothing inconsistent with aluminum being at 800C and pouring out a window on WTC2 with a red-orange color. The fires were hot enough to bring it to that temperature. It's possible there may have been thermite reactions occurring between the aluminum and building materials that raised the temperature of the aluminum higher than what the fires alone could have produced.
Some globules could have had a thin slag on them which got removed when they collided with each other or the facade. An analogous thing happens when you see charcoals in a pit that appear ash-colored but then appear red-orange when they are disturbed. I don't have a high resolution version of the molten material coming out of WTC2 which makes it diffifcult to see what's going on exactly.
Here's an example of an aluminum-concrete interaction. Think what could happen with a jumbo jet inside a building with about 70,000 kg of aluminum and a sizeable portion of it molten.
http://users.frii.com/katana/castindex.html
"I cast on concrete that was bone-dry, 20 years old, and floated my upper mold off because I was an idiot who thought that it couldn't possibly get lifted by the tiny cast I was doing. A huge blob of molten aluminum poured out the side and onto the concrete, sat for a moment, and then the concrete exploded with a sound like a gunshot, blowing a nearly red-hot blast of still liquid aluminum and concrete shrapnel into my face. I had serious protective equipment on, and when I saw a big drizzle of aluminum run down the face shield right over my left eye, I was *extremely* glad I was wearing it. "
http://users.frii.com/katana/castindex.html
"I cast on concrete that was bone-dry, 20 years old, and floated my upper mold off because I was an idiot who thought that it couldn't possibly get lifted by the tiny cast I was doing. A huge blob of molten aluminum poured out the side and onto the concrete, sat for a moment, and then the concrete exploded with a sound like a gunshot, blowing a nearly red-hot blast of still liquid aluminum and concrete shrapnel into my face. I had serious protective equipment on, and when I saw a big drizzle of aluminum run down the face shield right over my left eye, I was *extremely* glad I was wearing it. "
Molten aluminum at 800C will have an red-orange glow unless there is a slag over it. If you pour a pot of aluminum at 800C, you are going to see red-orange.
There's nothing inconsistent with aluminum being at 800C and pouring out a window on WTC2 with a red-orange color. The fires were hot enough to bring it to that temperature.
Aluminium at ambient temperature, melting point and at 800 C is silver. Not orange, not red, not yellow. The molten metal could be described by orange, red or yellow, but not silver. Therefore it is not aluminium.
It's possible there may have been thermite reactions occurring between the aluminum and building materials that raised the temperature of the aluminum higher than what the fires alone could have produced.
The evidence and experiment of Professor Jones state otherwise, there is no historical precedent that I know of for this, and there has been no detail supplied regarding any possible or plausible chemical reaction to account for this.
The reaction involving molten aluminium and concrete is not a thermite reaction and does not rely on the aluminium for its effect. Instead it is the heat acting on the entrapped water in the concrete causing explosive spalling of the concrete. You can get exactly the same reaction by lighting a wood bonfire on a concrete floor.
Gordon.
There's nothing inconsistent with aluminum being at 800C and pouring out a window on WTC2 with a red-orange color. The fires were hot enough to bring it to that temperature.
Aluminium at ambient temperature, melting point and at 800 C is silver. Not orange, not red, not yellow. The molten metal could be described by orange, red or yellow, but not silver. Therefore it is not aluminium.
It's possible there may have been thermite reactions occurring between the aluminum and building materials that raised the temperature of the aluminum higher than what the fires alone could have produced.
The evidence and experiment of Professor Jones state otherwise, there is no historical precedent that I know of for this, and there has been no detail supplied regarding any possible or plausible chemical reaction to account for this.
The reaction involving molten aluminium and concrete is not a thermite reaction and does not rely on the aluminium for its effect. Instead it is the heat acting on the entrapped water in the concrete causing explosive spalling of the concrete. You can get exactly the same reaction by lighting a wood bonfire on a concrete floor.
Gordon.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 28 2006, 03:55 AM)
Personally, I don’t think professor Jones cares about puffs of smoke. He just wants people to see the obvious demolition of Building 7 and Official conspiracy theorist are doing the Job for Him. It sure didn’t take puffs of smoke for me to realize something was wrong with the official collapse explanation.
There isn't an official collapse explanation for WTC 7, NIST is still working on it.
Arthur
There isn't an official collapse explanation for WTC 7, NIST is still working on it.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 28 2006, 03:18 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2006, 09:48 PM)
Pulverization is NOT the issue.
Hoffman's paper is based upon an average size of 60 MICRONS.
The dot at the end of this sentence is over 600 microns.
So any person describing material of that size would say it is pulverized.
But since volume of a sphere is a function of the cube of the radius, the 600 micron particle has a volume 1,000 times larger than a 60 micron particle.
Which affects the amount of ENERGY required to pulverize it greatly.
Now, going back to the articles about the WTC dust, not ONE of them was designed to determine the average size of the material from the collapse of the WTC towers. They were HEALTH studies and so focused on what COULD be breathed in. Thus the SITES they chose were based on this issue. Thus they chose to get dust from PROTECTED SITES and AWAY from Ground Zero. Thus this was the stuff that WAS the smallest.
From the pictures I posted earlier it seems quite clear that the material around Ground Zero accounted for the majority of the debris and it was in fact FAR FAR greater average size than even 600 microns.
Thus Hoffman's entire analysis is flawed.
Which is why there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow.
Arthur
Pulverization is not the issue?
Only if you have absolutely no curiosity or an agenda.
Yeah,
Did you NOT expect a large cloud of dust?
The QUESTIONS ARE:
Is it PYROCLASTIC?
Is the AVERAGE particle size of the crushed concrete 60 microns.
The rest is just handwaving.
Now Hoffman suggests that the AVERAGE temp of the cloud is over 1000 K. Which would TORCH everything it touches and kill any living thing that it overtakes.
THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.
As seen by the overhead picture, the majority of the dust cloud is spreading, but it is NOT RISING like the central column, which IT WOULD DO if it was even 500 K.
Now already on this thread we have posted many pictures of the debris pile and its very clear that not everything was pulverized.
Hoffman is VERY NON-SPECIFIC as to how he gets the 60 micron size, and while he cites Lioy he then says "Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size",
But a reading of the literature, including Lioy, finds NO SUPPORT for that assumption about AVERAGE CONCRETE PARTICLE SIZE. The tests that Lioy did were not designed to, nor would they address the question and in fact were done in a way that would CLEARLY limit the particle size of their dust sample.
Unfortunately for Hoffman, this is the KEY to his hypothesis.
So, if you have ANY EVIDENCE that either of these assertions (avg size of concrete and average temp of cloud) by Hoffman are correct then:
POST THEM.
Otherwise YOU are the one with an AGENDA.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 01:26 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 28 2006, 03:18 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2006, 09:48 PM)
Pulverization is NOT the issue.
Hoffman's paper is based upon an average size of 60 MICRONS.
The dot at the end of this sentence is over 600 microns.
So any person describing material of that size would say it is pulverized.
But since volume of a sphere is a function of the cube of the radius, the 600 micron particle has a volume 1,000 times larger than a 60 micron particle.
Which affects the amount of ENERGY required to pulverize it greatly.
Now, going back to the articles about the WTC dust, not ONE of them was designed to determine the average size of the material from the collapse of the WTC towers. They were HEALTH studies and so focused on what COULD be breathed in. Thus the SITES they chose were based on this issue. Thus they chose to get dust from PROTECTED SITES and AWAY from Ground Zero. Thus this was the stuff that WAS the smallest.
From the pictures I posted earlier it seems quite clear that the material around Ground Zero accounted for the majority of the debris and it was in fact FAR FAR greater average size than even 600 microns.
Thus Hoffman's entire analysis is flawed.
Which is why there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow.
Arthur
Pulverization is not the issue?
Only if you have absolutely no curiosity or an agenda.
Yeah,
Did you NOT expect a large cloud of dust?
The QUESTIONS ARE:
Is it PYROCLASTIC?
Is the AVERAGE particle size of the crushed concrete 60 microns.
The rest is just handwaving.
Now Hoffman suggests that the AVERAGE temp of the cloud is over 1000 K. Which would TORCH everything it touches and kill any living thing that it overtakes.
THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.
As seen by the overhead picture, the majority of the dust cloud is spreading, but it is NOT RISING, which IT WOULD DO if it was even 500 K.
Now already on this thread we have posted many pictures of the debris pile and its very clear that not everything was pulverized.
Hoffman states that he gets the 60 micron size from the literature, but a reading of the literature, finds NO SUPPORT for that LEAP.
If you have ANY EVIDENCE that either of these assertions by Hoffman are correct then:
POST THEM.
Otherwise YOU are the one with an AGENDA.
Arthur
I find it fascinating that people who write books and web sites who get donations and moneys from traffic are accusing people on a physics board of having an "agenda". It's blatantly obvious who has the agenda here.
Again, Thanks to Faux for the chuckle and calling me Schneibster. I especially would like to thank him for the compliment...
QUOTE
"Did anyone ever really think that the Schneibster was intelligent enough to make all this up?"
Since I proved it was my site using Schneibster and RC's post, I'm sure I speak for them when I say...
THANK YOU
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 28 2006, 12:56 AM)
I recently viewed part of a video which re-iterated the observation of near-total pulverization of the concrete, by a well known source - Governor Pataki.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
Pulverization is NOT the issue.
Hoffman's paper is based upon an average size of 60 MICRONS.
The dot at the end of this sentence is over 600 microns.
So any person describing material of that size would say it is pulverized.
But since volume of a sphere is a function of the cube of the radius, the 600 micron particle has a volume 1,000 times larger than a 60 micron particle.
Which affects the amount of ENERGY required to pulverize it greatly.
Now, going back to the articles about the WTC dust, not ONE of them was designed to determine the average size of the material from the collapse of the WTC towers. They were HEALTH studies and so focused on what COULD be breathed in. Thus the SITES they chose were based on this issue. Thus they chose to get dust from PROTECTED SITES and AWAY from Ground Zero. Thus this was the stuff that WAS the smallest.
From the pictures I posted earlier it seems quite clear that the material around Ground Zero accounted for the majority of the debris and it was in fact FAR FAR greater average size than even 600 microns.
Thus Hoffman's entire analysis is flawed.
Which is why there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow.
Arthur
As has been reiterated before, the energy sink associated with heating far exceeded that of grinding/puverisation. If the energy associated with grinding/pulverisation is less than Hoffman estimated, that would imply that, if the particles are still small enough to be heated to their ambient temperature quickly enough, the ratio of E(heating) / E(pulverisation) greater than otherwise. Hence, you are focussing on the wrong thing. Do you understand this, or don't you?
So what rate of heat conduction do you calculate for a 600 micron concrete particle? If the size is 600 microns, I'd still expect the powder (on an intuitive basis, only) to still heat up to ambient temperatures in, if not 1 second, then 2 seconds.
Re your "analysis" of the photos: I thought (and still think) they basically disproved what you were arguing for. That's why I described yours or Schniebster's comments (or both, I can't remember exactly) as "a scream". Apparently, Pataki would agree, and he was there.
It's be fair, though, to research what a "typical" maximum particulate size is for what laymen call "powder".
If it's 600 microns, and my intuition regarding how quickly such particles can be heated is correct, then your goose is cooked, so to speak!
Also, another calculation suggests itself. Take Pataki's estimates, get an estimate of the area Pataki's estimates apply to, get some kind of estimate re the "space filling" properties (net density) of powders at various particle sizes, pick a middlin' density* and try and come up with an estimate of mass of the powder that way.
No, it won't be very precise.
Your concerns about the actual temperatures in most of the pyroclastic flow (or whatever you want to call it) have mostly been addressed, and aren't entirely without merit. However, neither you (nor Hoffman) has calculated cooling away from the source of heating. Hoffman crudely accounted for it by throwing away 1/3 of his volume estimate (IIRC). You "account" for it NOT by ignoring what Hoffman wrote.
Perhaps one of the debunkers might actually do a calculation....
Oh, I know! Reality Check! He's a scientist, you see, so he fully understands that quantitative arguments normally trump qualitative ones. As he feels qualified to refer to the accomplished Jones and Hoffman as "idiots", perhaps he can actually show us his stuff, instead of posting yet another "stream of consciousness" elaboration of improbable imaginings, or insignificant realities.
"Any other suggestions?"
You missed a bit.
Gordon
You STATED:
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far.
Which puts the thermite UP ON THE IMPACT FLOORS.
Before you and Foxx were postulating it was down in the Basement.
Which is it?
Or is it in both places?
Arthur
Hi ScottS... did you read the NIST report (or the pages I posted at least)...
Hi ScottS... did you read the NIST report (or the pages I posted at least)...
Just before 9:52 a.m. puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location. This flow lasted approximately 4 seconds before subsiding.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
page 34 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2a.jpg
Does this establish beyond doubt for you (from the arsoNIST documents themselves), that 'puffs of dust' were happening just prior to the collapse (as well as when it was in progress).
Perhaps you would reconsider your quote above.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Cheers
Foxx
Hi ScottS... did you read the NIST report (or the pages I posted at least)...
Hi ScottS... did you read the NIST report (or the pages I posted at least)...
Just before 9:52 a.m. puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location. This flow lasted approximately 4 seconds before subsiding.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
page 34 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2a.jpg
Does this establish beyond doubt for you (from the arsoNIST documents themselves), that 'puffs of dust' were happening just prior to the collapse (as well as when it was in progress).
Perhaps you would reconsider your quote above.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Cheers
Foxx
I was refering to Jones clear blunder about the building 7 video.
I wasn't talking about the alumnium and other debris coming out of the Twin Towers.
It's easier if you read my post first.
See "911 Revisited", at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
Would somebody be good enough to transcribe his remarks?
Another day, another nail in the coffin of the FEMA Fairy Tale....
(My apologies if this had already been posted on this thread.)
Pulverization is NOT the issue.
Hoffman's paper is based upon an average size of 60 MICRONS.
The dot at the end of this sentence is over 600 microns.
So any person describing material of that size would say it is pulverized.
But since volume of a sphere is a function of the cube of the radius, the 600 micron particle has a volume 1,000 times larger than a 60 micron particle.
Which affects the amount of ENERGY required to pulverize it greatly.
Now, going back to the articles about the WTC dust, not ONE of them was designed to determine the average size of the material from the collapse of the WTC towers. They were HEALTH studies and so focused on what COULD be breathed in. Thus the SITES they chose were based on this issue. Thus they chose to get dust from PROTECTED SITES and AWAY from Ground Zero. Thus this was the stuff that WAS the smallest.
From the pictures I posted earlier it seems quite clear that the material around Ground Zero accounted for the majority of the debris and it was in fact FAR FAR greater average size than even 600 microns.
Thus Hoffman's entire analysis is flawed.
Which is why there was NO PYROCLASTIC flow.
Arthur
As has been reiterated before, the energy sink associated with heating far exceeded that of grinding/puverisation. If the energy associated with grinding/pulverisation is less than Hoffman estimated, that would imply that, if the particles are still small enough to be heated to their ambient temperature quickly enough, the ratio of E(heating) / E(pulverisation) greater than otherwise. Hence, you are focussing on the wrong thing. Do you understand this, or don't you?
So what rate of heat conduction do you calculate for a 600 micron concrete particle? If the size is 600 microns, I'd still expect the powder (on an intuitive basis, only) to still heat up to ambient temperatures in, if not 1 second, then 2 seconds.
Re your "analysis" of the photos: I thought (and still think) they basically disproved what you were arguing for. That's why I described yours or Schniebster's comments (or both, I can't remember exactly) as "a scream". Apparently, Pataki would agree, and he was there.
It's be fair, though, to research what a "typical" maximum particulate size is for what laymen call "powder".
If it's 600 microns, and my intuition regarding how quickly such particles can be heated is correct, then your goose is cooked, so to speak!
Also, another calculation suggests itself. Take Pataki's estimates, get an estimate of the area Pataki's estimates apply to, get some kind of estimate re the "space filling" properties (net density) of powders at various particle sizes, pick a middlin' density* and try and come up with an estimate of mass of the powder that way.
No, it won't be very precise.
Your concerns about the actual temperatures in most of the pyroclastic flow (or whatever you want to call it) have mostly been addressed, and aren't entirely without merit. However, neither you (nor Hoffman) has calculated cooling away from the source of heating. Hoffman crudely accounted for it by throwing away 1/3 of his volume estimate (IIRC). You "account" for it NOT by ignoring what Hoffman wrote.
Perhaps one of the debunkers might actually do a calculation....
Oh, I know! Reality Check! He's a scientist, you see, so he fully understands that quantitative arguments normally trump qualitative ones. As he feels qualified to refer to the accomplished Jones and Hoffman as "idiots", perhaps he can actually show us his stuff, instead of posting yet another "stream of consciousness" elaboration of improbable imaginings, or insignificant realities.
Metamars
Hoffman makes several assertions, but the KEY ones are that it took MORE energy to crush the concrete to an average 60 micron size than was in the total PE of the towers.
The KEY to this assertion is that the average size was 60 microns.
There IS NO PROOF FOR THIS ASSERTION.
The other assertions have to do with the EXPANSION of the dust cloud, which Hoffman ASSUMES is driven by heat.
There is NO PROOF the cloud was Pyroclastic in nature (his 1,000+ K average temperature)
Thus NONE of his assertions hold up.
He's a fool, but you're a WORSE fool for believing his BS and claiming for 6 months that it doesn't STINK.
Arthur
Hoffman makes several assertions, but the KEY ones are that it took MORE energy to crush the concrete to an average 60 micron size than was in the total PE of the towers.
The KEY to this assertion is that the average size was 60 microns.
There IS NO PROOF FOR THIS ASSERTION.
The other assertions have to do with the EXPANSION of the dust cloud, which Hoffman ASSUMES is driven by heat.
There is NO PROOF the cloud was Pyroclastic in nature (his 1,000+ K average temperature)
Thus NONE of his assertions hold up.
He's a fool, but you're a WORSE fool for believing his BS and claiming for 6 months that it doesn't STINK.
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 28 2006, 07:57 AM)
Some (including NIST spokespersons) have speculated that it might have been molten aluminum.
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
So do I.
It could not have been aluminium, because it was the wrong colour. Aluminium is silver, even when melted.
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far. Any other suggestions.
Gordon.
So, Gordon and Foxx.
Is this your NEW working assumption?
That the Thermite was up on the floors where the planes hit???
Based on THAT video?
You guys never fail to entertain.
Reminds me of:
Arthur
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
So do I.
It could not have been aluminium, because it was the wrong colour. Aluminium is silver, even when melted.
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far. Any other suggestions.
Gordon.
So, Gordon and Foxx.
Is this your NEW working assumption?
That the Thermite was up on the floors where the planes hit???
Based on THAT video?
You guys never fail to entertain.
Reminds me of:
Arthur
Some (including NIST spokespersons) have speculated that it might have been molten aluminum.
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
So do I.
It could not have been aluminium, because it was the wrong colour. Aluminium is silver, even when melted.
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far. Any other suggestions.
Gordon.
So, Gordon and Foxx.
Is this your NEW working assumption?
That the Thermite was up on the floors where the planes hit???
Based on THAT video?
You guys never fail to entertain
Arthur
"Any other suggestions?"
You missed a bit.
Gordon
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
So do I.
It could not have been aluminium, because it was the wrong colour. Aluminium is silver, even when melted.
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far. Any other suggestions.
Gordon.
So, Gordon and Foxx.
Is this your NEW working assumption?
That the Thermite was up on the floors where the planes hit???
Based on THAT video?
You guys never fail to entertain
Arthur
"Any other suggestions?"
You missed a bit.
Gordon
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 28 2006, 11:39 AM)
"Any other suggestions?"
You missed a bit.
Gordon
You STATED:
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far.
Which puts the thermite UP ON THE IMPACT FLOORS.
Before you and Foxx were postulating it was down in the Basement.
Which is it?
Or is it in both places?
Arthur
Evoking Pataki as "evidence" of anything scientific has an air of desperation to it. I also find it humorous. To my knowledge Pataki never took samples to know what that gray "powder" was. He could have been seeing gypsum and assuming concrete.
More than one person on this board showed exactly why the "accomplished Jones and Hoffman" are idiots. ScottS is just another in a long line of people who's pointed out specific problems in their paper. The incredible "sloppiness" is cataloged for all to see in this thread.
To my knowledge Pataki never took samples to know what that gray "powder" was. He could have been seeing gypsum and assuming concrete.More than one person on this board showed exactly why the "accomplished Jones and Hoffman" are idiots. ScottS is just another in a long line of people who's pointed out specific problems in their paper. The incredible "sloppiness" is cataloged for all to see in this thread.
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Feb 28 2006, 09:07 AM)
In reply to RC who asked for an MPEG of the Camera Planet video, try this:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.mpg
The Scholars group is/are working on more papers and doubtless people will deny and ridicule the evidence in them, as they have the simple facts of free-fall/near free fall (the attitude to which still kind of baffles me really). There are a couple of other items of physical evidence being discussed - and I guess they may have already gone through the "vitriol and ridicule mill" in this list of 6000+ replies - I just haven't had chance to read all of this.
I think the most significant evidence to come to light which again supports CD is the above video. Towards the end of the clip, there seems to be quite a large quantity of orange material coming out, the camera zooms to the helicopter, then back to the collapse. How strange.
Prof Jones has posted a reply to Greenings ideas re Aluminium reaction. This is posted on st911.org, in case no one has already posted the link:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc
For anyone who wants to hear Prof Jim Fetzer, Prof Morgan Reynolds and Prof Griffin's broadcast, use this link:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/...2023%202006.mp3
19.2 megs, 111 mins or so playback.
What interested me about the broadcast were the callers at the end - as I recall, there were at least 2 who just politicised the issue. A shame. "Ha - that's the science of a Democrat!" (Yes, I know they didn't say that, but that seemed to be the attiitude.)
C2C's summary here:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/02/23.html
If anyone wants to look at Steve Jones USVC Presentation, try this page:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/
A paper means nothing if it doesn't pass peer review. Their are already "Papers" on the subject.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.mpg
The Scholars group is/are working on more papers and doubtless people will deny and ridicule the evidence in them, as they have the simple facts of free-fall/near free fall (the attitude to which still kind of baffles me really). There are a couple of other items of physical evidence being discussed - and I guess they may have already gone through the "vitriol and ridicule mill" in this list of 6000+ replies - I just haven't had chance to read all of this.
I think the most significant evidence to come to light which again supports CD is the above video. Towards the end of the clip, there seems to be quite a large quantity of orange material coming out, the camera zooms to the helicopter, then back to the collapse. How strange.
Prof Jones has posted a reply to Greenings ideas re Aluminium reaction. This is posted on st911.org, in case no one has already posted the link:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc
For anyone who wants to hear Prof Jim Fetzer, Prof Morgan Reynolds and Prof Griffin's broadcast, use this link:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/...2023%202006.mp3
19.2 megs, 111 mins or so playback.
What interested me about the broadcast were the callers at the end - as I recall, there were at least 2 who just politicised the issue. A shame. "Ha - that's the science of a Democrat!" (Yes, I know they didn't say that, but that seemed to be the attiitude.)
C2C's summary here:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/02/23.html
If anyone wants to look at Steve Jones USVC Presentation, try this page:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/
A paper means nothing if it doesn't pass peer review. Their are already "Papers" on the subject.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Feb 28 2006, 12:08 PM)
A paper means nothing if it doesn't pass peer review. Their are already "Papers" on the subject.
AFAIK, it hasn't BEEN published in ANY journal.
AFAIK it is supposedly going to be published in an ECONOMICS journal.
Which brings into question the whole idea of it being "PEER REVIEWED" even if it manages to get published.
Now if you have a PHYSICS/ENGINEERING paper, what's the point of publishing it in a NON-PHYSICS or ENGINEERIING related journal?????
At this point its status is EXACTLY the same as the other CT web sites, and as far as I know, is there for exactly the same reason.
Ka Ching.
Fleecing morons like Rove's Shill, Newton, Brian et al.
Arthur
AFAIK, it hasn't BEEN published in ANY journal.
AFAIK it is supposedly going to be published in an ECONOMICS journal.
Which brings into question the whole idea of it being "PEER REVIEWED" even if it manages to get published.
Now if you have a PHYSICS/ENGINEERING paper, what's the point of publishing it in a NON-PHYSICS or ENGINEERIING related journal?????
At this point its status is EXACTLY the same as the other CT web sites, and as far as I know, is there for exactly the same reason.
Ka Ching.
Fleecing morons like Rove's Shill, Newton, Brian et al.
Arthur
You STATED:
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far.
Which puts the thermite UP ON THE IMPACT FLOORS.
Before you and Foxx were postulating it was down in the Basement.
Which is it?
Or is it in both places?
Arthur
I can't know that, but it is the only scenario which has been put forward on this thread, or anywhere else that I have seen, which explains and would account for the physical evidence. The temperatures of the steel, the debris pile and the reaction in question, the colours, the movement of the antennae, the mode of collapse, the removal of the structure's ability, the use of Pyrocool, sulfidation of steel.
All of these boxes are ticked and there have been no other plausible explanations or postulations which have done that.
I am open to suggestions.
Gordon.
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far.
Which puts the thermite UP ON THE IMPACT FLOORS.
Before you and Foxx were postulating it was down in the Basement.
Which is it?
Or is it in both places?
Arthur
I can't know that, but it is the only scenario which has been put forward on this thread, or anywhere else that I have seen, which explains and would account for the physical evidence. The temperatures of the steel, the debris pile and the reaction in question, the colours, the movement of the antennae, the mode of collapse, the removal of the structure's ability, the use of Pyrocool, sulfidation of steel.
All of these boxes are ticked and there have been no other plausible explanations or postulations which have done that.
I am open to suggestions.
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 28 2006, 03:39 PM)
Some (including NIST spokespersons) have speculated that it might have been molten aluminum.
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
So do I.
It could not have been aluminium, because it was the wrong colour. Aluminium is silver, even when melted.
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far. Any other suggestions.
Gordon.
So, Gordon and Foxx.
Is this your NEW working assumption?
That the Thermite was up on the floors where the planes hit???
Based on THAT video?
You guys never fail to entertain
Arthur
"Any other suggestions?"
You missed a bit.
Gordon
i thought that, too, having seen flowing silver molten aluminum.
however, aluminum can be heated until it begins to glow it's way through the heated metal colour spectrum.
the importantant thing to note, though, is that it WOULD be silver if had merely melted at 660C, and would then begin to run.
also, the aluminum cladding, attached to the perimeter column, could have been seen dripping if the fires were as hot as alleged by arsoNIST. more evidence that the perimeter columns just weren't that hot.
check the thermal analysis of the most severe case here:cool heat
not even CLOSE, arsoNIST.
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
So do I.
It could not have been aluminium, because it was the wrong colour. Aluminium is silver, even when melted.
Only the thermite or thermite like reaction which has been postulated fits the evidence so far. Any other suggestions.
Gordon.
So, Gordon and Foxx.
Is this your NEW working assumption?
That the Thermite was up on the floors where the planes hit???
Based on THAT video?
You guys never fail to entertain
Arthur
"Any other suggestions?"
You missed a bit.
Gordon
i thought that, too, having seen flowing silver molten aluminum.
however, aluminum can be heated until it begins to glow it's way through the heated metal colour spectrum.
the importantant thing to note, though, is that it WOULD be silver if had merely melted at 660C, and would then begin to run.
also, the aluminum cladding, attached to the perimeter column, could have been seen dripping if the fires were as hot as alleged by arsoNIST. more evidence that the perimeter columns just weren't that hot.
check the thermal analysis of the most severe case here:cool heat
not even CLOSE, arsoNIST.
ArsoNIST !
I love it !!!
You have just coined a new word for my vocabulary. Are you sure you haven't posted under the name of 'Katje' (in other forums)? She was great, and a constant source of chuckles too.
Anyway, thanks for the new word, newton
I love it !!!
You have just coined a new word for my vocabulary. Are you sure you haven't posted under the name of 'Katje' (in other forums)? She was great, and a constant source of chuckles too.
Anyway, thanks for the new word, newton
QUOTE
Originally posted by ScottS
The "puffs of smoke" are his so called "squibs". One of the many problems with Jones is the timing. Jones thought the "squibs" started first, then the upper floors started to move. I guess he got a little too eager and forgot to look at the larger videos of the collapse.
The "puffs of smoke" are his so called "squibs". One of the many problems with Jones is the timing. Jones thought the "squibs" started first, then the upper floors started to move. I guess he got a little too eager and forgot to look at the larger videos of the collapse.
Hi ScottS... did you read the NIST report (or the pages I posted at least)...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by ScottS The "puffs of smoke" are his so called "squibs". One of the many problems with Jones is the timing. Jones thought the "squibs" started first, then the upper floors started to move. I guess he got a little too eager and forgot to look at the larger videos of the collapse. |
Hi ScottS... did you read the NIST report (or the pages I posted at least)...
Just before 9:52 a.m. puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location. This flow lasted approximately 4 seconds before subsiding.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
page 34 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2a.jpg
Does this establish beyond doubt for you (from the arsoNIST documents themselves), that 'puffs of dust' were happening just prior to the collapse (as well as when it was in progress).
Perhaps you would reconsider your quote above.
QUOTE
Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location prior to the collapse of the tower. Several were accompanied by puffs of dust and smoke that were now occuring frequently ...The falling debris coincided with a heavy flow of molten metal from the north face.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Cheers
Foxx
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 28 2006, 05:59 PM)
ArsoNIST !
I love it !!!
You have just coined a new word for my vocabulary. Are you sure you haven't posted under the name of 'Katje' (in other forums)? She was great, and a constant source of chuckles too.
Anyway, thanks for the new word, newton
yeah, no. not katje.
arsoNIST, LOL! i like layered meanings. they just come to you, if you let them. i swear they're built into the thought/reality matrix by design, sometimes.
I love it !!!
You have just coined a new word for my vocabulary. Are you sure you haven't posted under the name of 'Katje' (in other forums)? She was great, and a constant source of chuckles too.
Anyway, thanks for the new word, newton
yeah, no. not katje.
arsoNIST, LOL! i like layered meanings. they just come to you, if you let them. i swear they're built into the thought/reality matrix by design, sometimes.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 28 2006, 06:20 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by ScottS
The "puffs of smoke" are his so called "squibs". One of the many problems with Jones is the timing. Jones thought the "squibs" started first, then the upper floors started to move. I guess he got a little too eager and forgot to look at the larger videos of the collapse.
The "puffs of smoke" are his so called "squibs". One of the many problems with Jones is the timing. Jones thought the "squibs" started first, then the upper floors started to move. I guess he got a little too eager and forgot to look at the larger videos of the collapse.
Hi ScottS... did you read the NIST report (or the pages I posted at least)...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by ScottS The "puffs of smoke" are his so called "squibs". One of the many problems with Jones is the timing. Jones thought the "squibs" started first, then the upper floors started to move. I guess he got a little too eager and forgot to look at the larger videos of the collapse. |
Hi ScottS... did you read the NIST report (or the pages I posted at least)...
Just before 9:52 a.m. puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location. This flow lasted approximately 4 seconds before subsiding.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
page 34 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2a.jpg
Does this establish beyond doubt for you (from the arsoNIST documents themselves), that 'puffs of dust' were happening just prior to the collapse (as well as when it was in progress).
Perhaps you would reconsider your quote above.
QUOTE
Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location prior to the collapse of the tower. Several were accompanied by puffs of dust and smoke that were now occuring frequently ...The falling debris coincided with a heavy flow of molten metal from the north face.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Cheers
Foxx
I was refering to Jones clear blunder about the building 7 video.
I wasn't talking about the alumnium and other debris coming out of the Twin Towers.
It's easier if you read my post first.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 04:40 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Feb 28 2006, 12:08 PM)
A paper means nothing if it doesn't pass peer review. Their are already "Papers" on the subject.
AFAIK, it hasn't BEEN published in ANY journal.
AFAIK it is supposedly going to be published in an ECONOMICS journal.
Which brings into question the whole idea of it being "PEER REVIEWED" even if it manages to get published.
Now if you have a PHYSICS/ENGINEERING paper, what's the point of publishing it in a NON-PHYSICS or ENGINEERIING related journal?????
At this point its status is EXACTLY the same as the other CT web sites, and as far as I know, is there for exactly the same reason.
Ka Ching.
Fleecing morons like Rove's Shill, Newton, Brian et al.
Arthur
The creationist do the same thing. They publish the earth is only 5000 years old in a christian science journal. Heh!
No one will take this seriously until it's published in a civil engineering journal. NO ONE.
Until it is, it will get the attention it deserves. "people will deny and ridicule the evidence in them" and deservedly so. Because if it can't be published on main stream civil engineering journals it means it can't pass the scrutiny it deserves.
PERIOD!
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1985.htm
AFAIK, it hasn't BEEN published in ANY journal.
AFAIK it is supposedly going to be published in an ECONOMICS journal.
Which brings into question the whole idea of it being "PEER REVIEWED" even if it manages to get published.
Now if you have a PHYSICS/ENGINEERING paper, what's the point of publishing it in a NON-PHYSICS or ENGINEERIING related journal?????
At this point its status is EXACTLY the same as the other CT web sites, and as far as I know, is there for exactly the same reason.
Ka Ching.
Fleecing morons like Rove's Shill, Newton, Brian et al.
Arthur
The creationist do the same thing. They publish the earth is only 5000 years old in a christian science journal. Heh!
No one will take this seriously until it's published in a civil engineering journal. NO ONE.
Until it is, it will get the attention it deserves. "people will deny and ridicule the evidence in them" and deservedly so. Because if it can't be published on main stream civil engineering journals it means it can't pass the scrutiny it deserves.
PERIOD!
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1985.htm
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 27 2006, 08:41 PM)
Quote;RC
So it seems (there's another 'iffy' word, heh?) that you have learned NOTHING from you CTers' debacle with the firemen MISquotes where they heard what "sounded like explosions" when they were describing the 'progressive booms' of the floors pancaking. Are "seems", "appears", "looks like" and "sounds like" your whole criteria for what is observed in all these cases? Don't you apply logic, experience, common sense and Occam's Razor at all? Ever? Never?
Let's get this straight: The fire men were saying and gesturing; to a regular beat of - BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP......and you suggest, they were referencing sequential floor impacts?
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
100floors/12sec.=8.3floors per sec.
100floors/14sec.=7.1floors per sec.
It's still a RHYTHMIC BLUR that could not be readily translated into the BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP insinuations and gesticulations indicated by the fireman on the video.
Yes, I did fail to consider the non-linear nature of acceleration over the distance of the fall. Many reported an explosive roar at the initiating. This would have saturated any individual percussions early on. When the collapse wave progressed past this phase, its acceleration would be approaching the arithmetic mean that I carelessly posited. It's still going to be an audio event not unlike the discharge of a fully automatic weapon.
BOP_BOP_BOP_BOP_BOP_ is the discharge of a semi auto weapon.
Good effort at side stepping the central meaning of my original post, though.
V
A
D ARTH_U_R
E
R
So it seems (there's another 'iffy' word, heh?) that you have learned NOTHING from you CTers' debacle with the firemen MISquotes where they heard what "sounded like explosions" when they were describing the 'progressive booms' of the floors pancaking. Are "seems", "appears", "looks like" and "sounds like" your whole criteria for what is observed in all these cases? Don't you apply logic, experience, common sense and Occam's Razor at all? Ever? Never?
Let's get this straight: The fire men were saying and gesturing; to a regular beat of - BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP......and you suggest, they were referencing sequential floor impacts?
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
100floors/12sec.=8.3floors per sec.
100floors/14sec.=7.1floors per sec.
It's still a RHYTHMIC BLUR that could not be readily translated into the BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP insinuations and gesticulations indicated by the fireman on the video.
Yes, I did fail to consider the non-linear nature of acceleration over the distance of the fall. Many reported an explosive roar at the initiating. This would have saturated any individual percussions early on. When the collapse wave progressed past this phase, its acceleration would be approaching the arithmetic mean that I carelessly posited. It's still going to be an audio event not unlike the discharge of a fully automatic weapon.
BOP_BOP_BOP_BOP_BOP_ is the discharge of a semi auto weapon.
Good effort at side stepping the central meaning of my original post, though.
V
A
D ARTH_U_R
E
R
Carrying on further about these puffs of smoke and highly-unlikely (in-normal-circumstances, and outside of incendiaries) molten metal effects...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3791.jpg
Smoke puffs... smoke releases... arsoNIST words for evidence of demolition.
Of course the non-believers will grasp at the speculative straw in the next sentence...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3791.jpg
Smoke puffs... smoke releases... arsoNIST words for evidence of demolition.
Of course the non-believers will grasp at the speculative straw in the next sentence...
The evidence suggests that these smoke puffs resulted from pressure pulses generated within the tower and transmitted to other locations.
Uhhh... wait a minute what am I missing here?
What 'evidence' does NIST supply to support this postulation?
ZERO. Nada, ZIP... nothing but a speculative bone to throw the gravity-driven collapse supporters.
What caused the 'pressure pulses'?
I thought those were supposed to be from the Amazing Piston Theory? How do you have this piston pushing out these smoke puffs BEFORE the alleged piston is set in motion?
arsoNIST carries on to say...
Personally I dont view that as 'likely' at all...
unless you are ONLY considering the effects of high explosives.
I wonder how many (if ANY) NIST engineers are aware of the effects of thermite?
Can anyone show me where any of those working on this project have ANY qualifications with regard to explosives?
And if so, kindly post the results of their qualified and qantitative results of their studies in this area related to this investigation.
These guys are civil engineers... NOT explosives or incendiary experts, they should not be expected to know about the properties and effects of thermite-type incendiaries.
It only takes a 'small charge' (which would NOT appear to be sufficient to cause structural damage)... to set off the thermite or thermate reaction.
I don't find it surprising that they would have missed these facts in their analysis, at all - they weren't looking for evidence of explosives or incendiaries... so there statement that "they didn't find any evidence of such" ...may be literally true, and yet still... erroneous.
I haven't found ANY evidence at all in any of these reports where they quantify the energy contained in these mysterious puffs of dust. Where are they?
Yet they pope-ishly proclaim there is NO evidence !!!
Good grief, it's staring them right in the face, and they still claim the emperor is wearing clothes.
Personally I dont view that as 'likely' at all...
unless you are ONLY considering the effects of high explosives.
I wonder how many (if ANY) NIST engineers are aware of the effects of thermite?
Can anyone show me where any of those working on this project have ANY qualifications with regard to explosives?
And if so, kindly post the results of their qualified and qantitative results of their studies in this area related to this investigation.
These guys are civil engineers... NOT explosives or incendiary experts, they should not be expected to know about the properties and effects of thermite-type incendiaries.
It only takes a 'small charge' (which would NOT appear to be sufficient to cause structural damage)... to set off the thermite or thermate reaction.
I don't find it surprising that they would have missed these facts in their analysis, at all - they weren't looking for evidence of explosives or incendiaries... so there statement that "they didn't find any evidence of such" ...may be literally true, and yet still... erroneous.
I haven't found ANY evidence at all in any of these reports where they quantify the energy contained in these mysterious puffs of dust. Where are they?
Yet they pope-ishly proclaim there is NO evidence !!!
Good grief, it's staring them right in the face, and they still claim the emperor is wearing clothes.
For most of the smoke puffs, there was no visual indication of the event that generated the pressure pulse or it's location...
Then they turn right around and say...
Gee, and all this time I thought structural engineers could add.
Lemme see, 'puffs of dust and fire' ... suddenly molten metal begins to pour from the places where we KNOW these originated... but 'probably' or 'most likely' they would not be causing the same effects on the locations that we can't see !?!!
because....???
"well, er... um... ahhhhh - It just can't be.
It is Much more plausible that the buildings 'Just-Fell-Down' according to an engineering phenomenon that has NEVER been witnessed before or after outside of explosions". Forget about ALL the empirical evidence."
............
Its time for the gravity-driven collapse supporters to start explaining these events with a plausible rational explanation...
There's more and you can read about it on these pages...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf
{page 37 / adobe 91}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3791.jpg
&
{page 38 / adobe 92}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3892.jpg
&
Gee, and all this time I thought structural engineers could add.
Lemme see, 'puffs of dust and fire' ... suddenly molten metal begins to pour from the places where we KNOW these originated... but 'probably' or 'most likely' they would not be causing the same effects on the locations that we can't see !?!!
because....???
"well, er... um... ahhhhh - It just can't be.
It is Much more plausible that the buildings 'Just-Fell-Down' according to an engineering phenomenon that has NEVER been witnessed before or after outside of explosions". Forget about ALL the empirical evidence."
............
Its time for the gravity-driven collapse supporters to start explaining these events with a plausible rational explanation...
There's more and you can read about it on these pages...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf
{page 37 / adobe 91}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3791.jpg
&
{page 38 / adobe 92}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3892.jpg
&
Molten metal, presumably aluminum alloys that melt at 475 C to 635 C, pouring from the tops of open windows. A MAJOR instance occured on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:52 and lasted 7 MINUTES.
The goose is cooked... it's time to eat.
{page 39 / adobe 93}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3993.jpg
QUOTE
Additional unusual occurances observed for WTC 2 included the correlated smoke puffs observed over large areas of the facade and the roughly one-minute periods during which the smoke flows increased dramatically, often accompanied by external flames. These events were usually most evident on the 79th and 80th floors of the east face, but could often be detected on other floors and faces as well. At least 65 occurances of smoke-puffs were documented along with 7 times when the one-minute long smoke releases took place.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3791.jpg
Smoke puffs... smoke releases... arsoNIST words for evidence of demolition.
Of course the non-believers will grasp at the speculative straw in the next sentence...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Additional unusual occurances observed for WTC 2 included the correlated smoke puffs observed over large areas of the facade and the roughly one-minute periods during which the smoke flows increased dramatically, often accompanied by external flames. These events were usually most evident on the 79th and 80th floors of the east face, but could often be detected on other floors and faces as well. At least 65 occurances of smoke-puffs were documented along with 7 times when the one-minute long smoke releases took place. |
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3791.jpg
Smoke puffs... smoke releases... arsoNIST words for evidence of demolition.
Of course the non-believers will grasp at the speculative straw in the next sentence...
The evidence suggests that these smoke puffs resulted from pressure pulses generated within the tower and transmitted to other locations.
Uhhh... wait a minute what am I missing here?
What 'evidence' does NIST supply to support this postulation?
ZERO. Nada, ZIP... nothing but a speculative bone to throw the gravity-driven collapse supporters.
What caused the 'pressure pulses'?
I thought those were supposed to be from the Amazing Piston Theory? How do you have this piston pushing out these smoke puffs BEFORE the alleged piston is set in motion?
arsoNIST carries on to say...
QUOTE
It is considered likely while these pressure pulses were of sufficient magnitude to affect smoke flows over multiple faces and floors, they were much too small to affect the towers structural components
Personally I dont view that as 'likely' at all...
unless you are ONLY considering the effects of high explosives.
I wonder how many (if ANY) NIST engineers are aware of the effects of thermite?
Can anyone show me where any of those working on this project have ANY qualifications with regard to explosives?
And if so, kindly post the results of their qualified and qantitative results of their studies in this area related to this investigation.
These guys are civil engineers... NOT explosives or incendiary experts, they should not be expected to know about the properties and effects of thermite-type incendiaries.
It only takes a 'small charge' (which would NOT appear to be sufficient to cause structural damage)... to set off the thermite or thermate reaction.
I don't find it surprising that they would have missed these facts in their analysis, at all - they weren't looking for evidence of explosives or incendiaries... so there statement that "they didn't find any evidence of such" ...may be literally true, and yet still... erroneous.
I haven't found ANY evidence at all in any of these reports where they quantify the energy contained in these mysterious puffs of dust. Where are they?
Yet they pope-ishly proclaim there is NO evidence !!!
Good grief, it's staring them right in the face, and they still claim the emperor is wearing clothes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is considered likely while these pressure pulses were of sufficient magnitude to affect smoke flows over multiple faces and floors, they were much too small to affect the towers structural components |
Personally I dont view that as 'likely' at all...
unless you are ONLY considering the effects of high explosives.
I wonder how many (if ANY) NIST engineers are aware of the effects of thermite?
Can anyone show me where any of those working on this project have ANY qualifications with regard to explosives?
And if so, kindly post the results of their qualified and qantitative results of their studies in this area related to this investigation.
These guys are civil engineers... NOT explosives or incendiary experts, they should not be expected to know about the properties and effects of thermite-type incendiaries.
It only takes a 'small charge' (which would NOT appear to be sufficient to cause structural damage)... to set off the thermite or thermate reaction.
I don't find it surprising that they would have missed these facts in their analysis, at all - they weren't looking for evidence of explosives or incendiaries... so there statement that "they didn't find any evidence of such" ...may be literally true, and yet still... erroneous.
I haven't found ANY evidence at all in any of these reports where they quantify the energy contained in these mysterious puffs of dust. Where are they?
Yet they pope-ishly proclaim there is NO evidence !!!
Good grief, it's staring them right in the face, and they still claim the emperor is wearing clothes.
For most of the smoke puffs, there was no visual indication of the event that generated the pressure pulse or it's location...
Then they turn right around and say...
QUOTE
In a few cases, such as when molten metal poured from the tower, circumstantial evidence indicated that the puffs were associated with specific observed events
Gee, and all this time I thought structural engineers could add.
Lemme see, 'puffs of dust and fire' ... suddenly molten metal begins to pour from the places where we KNOW these originated... but 'probably' or 'most likely' they would not be causing the same effects on the locations that we can't see !?!!
because....???
"well, er... um... ahhhhh - It just can't be.
It is Much more plausible that the buildings 'Just-Fell-Down' according to an engineering phenomenon that has NEVER been witnessed before or after outside of explosions". Forget about ALL the empirical evidence."
............
Its time for the gravity-driven collapse supporters to start explaining these events with a plausible rational explanation...
There's more and you can read about it on these pages...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf
{page 37 / adobe 91}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3791.jpg
&
{page 38 / adobe 92}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3892.jpg
&
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In a few cases, such as when molten metal poured from the tower, circumstantial evidence indicated that the puffs were associated with specific observed events |
Gee, and all this time I thought structural engineers could add.
Lemme see, 'puffs of dust and fire' ... suddenly molten metal begins to pour from the places where we KNOW these originated... but 'probably' or 'most likely' they would not be causing the same effects on the locations that we can't see !?!!
because....???
"well, er... um... ahhhhh - It just can't be.
It is Much more plausible that the buildings 'Just-Fell-Down' according to an engineering phenomenon that has NEVER been witnessed before or after outside of explosions". Forget about ALL the empirical evidence."
............
Its time for the gravity-driven collapse supporters to start explaining these events with a plausible rational explanation...
There's more and you can read about it on these pages...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf
{page 37 / adobe 91}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3791.jpg
&
{page 38 / adobe 92}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3892.jpg
&
Molten metal, presumably aluminum alloys that melt at 475 C to 635 C, pouring from the tops of open windows. A MAJOR instance occured on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:52 and lasted 7 MINUTES.
The goose is cooked... it's time to eat.
{page 39 / adobe 93}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3993.jpg
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 04:40 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Feb 28 2006, 12:08 PM)
A paper means nothing if it doesn't pass peer review. Their are already "Papers" on the subject.
AFAIK, it hasn't BEEN published in ANY journal.
AFAIK it is supposedly going to be published in an ECONOMICS journal.
Which brings into question the whole idea of it being "PEER REVIEWED" even if it manages to get published.
Now if you have a PHYSICS/ENGINEERING paper, what's the point of publishing it in a NON-PHYSICS or ENGINEERIING related journal?????
At this point its status is EXACTLY the same as the other CT web sites, and as far as I know, is there for exactly the same reason.
Ka Ching.
Fleecing morons like Rove's Shill, Newton, Brian et al.
Arthur
i have yet to pay penny one for anything related to 911, other than internet access and time.
(by the way, i read books, too, been doing it for decades, so you don't have to bring out the mighty 'everything on the internet is untrue' bludgeon.)
if any conpiracy theorist wants to find out how to learn for free, send a self-adressed stamped envelope and a cheque for $2 to, 'double reverse straw man propoganda unlimited, p.o. box 666, c.o. red herring'.
AFAIK, it hasn't BEEN published in ANY journal.
AFAIK it is supposedly going to be published in an ECONOMICS journal.
Which brings into question the whole idea of it being "PEER REVIEWED" even if it manages to get published.
Now if you have a PHYSICS/ENGINEERING paper, what's the point of publishing it in a NON-PHYSICS or ENGINEERIING related journal?????
At this point its status is EXACTLY the same as the other CT web sites, and as far as I know, is there for exactly the same reason.
Ka Ching.
Fleecing morons like Rove's Shill, Newton, Brian et al.
Arthur
i have yet to pay penny one for anything related to 911, other than internet access and time.
(by the way, i read books, too, been doing it for decades, so you don't have to bring out the mighty 'everything on the internet is untrue' bludgeon.)
if any conpiracy theorist wants to find out how to learn for free, send a self-adressed stamped envelope and a cheque for $2 to, 'double reverse straw man propoganda unlimited, p.o. box 666, c.o. red herring'.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
I don't find it surprising that they would have missed these facts in their analysis, at all - they weren't looking for evidence of explosives or incendiaries... so there statement that "they didn't find any evidence of such" ...may be literally true, and yet still... erroneous.
I haven't found ANY evidence at all in any of these reports where they quantify the energy contained in these mysterious puffs of dust. Where are they?
Yet they pope-ishly proclaim there is NO evidence !!!
Good grief, it's staring them right in the face, and they still claim the emperor is wearing clothes.
Foxx, your a total retard.
Your new found discovery on the new cause of the collapse made me think of this:
ReasonWhy has a brand new pair of rollerskates,
Foxx has a brand new key.
They should get together and try them out you see.
He's been looking around awhile
You got something for him
Oh! he's got a brand new pair of roller skates
Foxx got a brand new key
RW ride her bike, roller skates, don't drive no car
Don't go too fast, but she goes pretty far
For somebody who don't drive
She been all around the world
Some people say, she done all right for a girl
Foxx asked RW's mother if she was at home
She said, yes .. but RW wasn't alone
Oh, sometimes I think that RW's avoiding him
Foxx's okay alone, but you've got something he needs
Well, RW's got a brand new pair of roller skates
Foxx got a brand new key
I think they should get together and try them out to see
La la la la la la la la, la la la la la la
Oh! RW got a brand new pair of roller skates
Foxx got a brand new key
Arthur
I haven't found ANY evidence at all in any of these reports where they quantify the energy contained in these mysterious puffs of dust. Where are they?
Yet they pope-ishly proclaim there is NO evidence !!!
Good grief, it's staring them right in the face, and they still claim the emperor is wearing clothes.
Foxx, your a total retard.
Your new found discovery on the new cause of the collapse made me think of this:
ReasonWhy has a brand new pair of rollerskates,
Foxx has a brand new key.
They should get together and try them out you see.
He's been looking around awhile
You got something for him
Oh! he's got a brand new pair of roller skates
Foxx got a brand new key
RW ride her bike, roller skates, don't drive no car
Don't go too fast, but she goes pretty far
For somebody who don't drive
She been all around the world
Some people say, she done all right for a girl
Foxx asked RW's mother if she was at home
She said, yes .. but RW wasn't alone
Oh, sometimes I think that RW's avoiding him
Foxx's okay alone, but you've got something he needs
Well, RW's got a brand new pair of roller skates
Foxx got a brand new key
I think they should get together and try them out to see
La la la la la la la la, la la la la la la
Oh! RW got a brand new pair of roller skates
Foxx got a brand new key
Arthur
Here Prof. Eagar states:
Quick facts about aluminum
From the DOE.
Quick facts about aluminum
From the DOE.
The usual forms of aluminum have a sufficiently high ignition temperature so that its burning is not a factor in most fires. However, very fine chips and shavings are occasionally subject to somewhat the same type of combustion as described for magnesium. Powdered or flaked aluminum in its pure form can ignite spontaneously in air and can be explosive in air
The ignition point of aluminum is given as 515 C on this site.
We know that solid aluminum does not readily ignite. It always has a layer of oxidized aluminum on the surface which helps counteract its igniting and it conducts heat very well so that any one spot reaching its ignition temp while in the presence of oxygen is less likely as well. However, smaller pieces residing within a hot fire with sufficient O2 could ignite.
In the case of the HMS Antelope the bombs raised the temp of a sufficiently large portion of the ship's structure that it did start burning even though it was a huge mass of aluminum and was sitting in cold south Atlantic waters.
It is not , therefore unlikely that a portion of the aluminum cladding of the building or of the fuselage of the plane was lodged in an area near the edge of the building which would provide ample O2 and in an area of high temps. Certainly the fire in that corner is burning furiously.
You can agrue all you want that molten Al should be silver in color but actually burning Al would be yellow-white or white hot
QUOTE
NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?
Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.
Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.
Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.
Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.
Quick facts about aluminum
From the DOE.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns? Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F. Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis. |
Quick facts about aluminum
From the DOE.
The usual forms of aluminum have a sufficiently high ignition temperature so that its burning is not a factor in most fires. However, very fine chips and shavings are occasionally subject to somewhat the same type of combustion as described for magnesium. Powdered or flaked aluminum in its pure form can ignite spontaneously in air and can be explosive in air
The ignition point of aluminum is given as 515 C on this site.
We know that solid aluminum does not readily ignite. It always has a layer of oxidized aluminum on the surface which helps counteract its igniting and it conducts heat very well so that any one spot reaching its ignition temp while in the presence of oxygen is less likely as well. However, smaller pieces residing within a hot fire with sufficient O2 could ignite.
In the case of the HMS Antelope the bombs raised the temp of a sufficiently large portion of the ship's structure that it did start burning even though it was a huge mass of aluminum and was sitting in cold south Atlantic waters.
It is not , therefore unlikely that a portion of the aluminum cladding of the building or of the fuselage of the plane was lodged in an area near the edge of the building which would provide ample O2 and in an area of high temps. Certainly the fire in that corner is burning furiously.
You can agrue all you want that molten Al should be silver in color but actually burning Al would be yellow-white or white hot
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 28 2006, 08:05 PM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 27 2006, 08:41 PM)
Quote;RC
So it seems (there's another 'iffy' word, heh?) that you have learned NOTHING from you CTers' debacle with the firemen MISquotes where they heard what "sounded like explosions" when they were describing the 'progressive booms' of the floors pancaking. Are "seems", "appears", "looks like" and "sounds like" your whole criteria for what is observed in all these cases? Don't you apply logic, experience, common sense and Occam's Razor at all? Ever? Never?
Let's get this straight: The fire men were saying and gesturing; to a regular beat of - BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP......and you suggest, they were referencing sequential floor impacts?
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
100floors/12sec.=8.3floors per sec.
100floors/14sec.=7.1floors per sec.
It's still a RHYTHMIC BLUR that could not be readily translated into the BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP insinuations and gesticulations indicated by the fireman on the video.
Good effort at side stepping the central meaning of my original post, though.
Your central meaning of your post is the insinuation that the fireman were talking about explosions and not what SOUNDED like explosions. Look again at their hands. It's not "BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP" like explosions in a lateral motion but...
BOP (Hand moves down)
BOP (Hand moves down)
BOP (Hand moves down)
BOP (Hand moves down)
BOP (Hand moves down)
BOP (Hand moves down)
...as in horizontal floors landing on one another. Yes, an acre of concrete flooring landing on one another makes a sound on earth. That sound is loud, one can even say it would sound like an explosion" and it would fit. If you need a physics paper for this I feel sorry for you. Anyone who ever swung a sledge hammer to concrete knows it makes noise.
I remember seeing one of the videos taken from street level and you can hear the "BOP's" get progressively faster until it becomes a rumble.
So it seems (there's another 'iffy' word, heh?) that you have learned NOTHING from you CTers' debacle with the firemen MISquotes where they heard what "sounded like explosions" when they were describing the 'progressive booms' of the floors pancaking. Are "seems", "appears", "looks like" and "sounds like" your whole criteria for what is observed in all these cases? Don't you apply logic, experience, common sense and Occam's Razor at all? Ever? Never?
Let's get this straight: The fire men were saying and gesturing; to a regular beat of - BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP......and you suggest, they were referencing sequential floor impacts?
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
100floors/12sec.=8.3floors per sec.
100floors/14sec.=7.1floors per sec.
It's still a RHYTHMIC BLUR that could not be readily translated into the BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP insinuations and gesticulations indicated by the fireman on the video.
Good effort at side stepping the central meaning of my original post, though.
Your central meaning of your post is the insinuation that the fireman were talking about explosions and not what SOUNDED like explosions. Look again at their hands. It's not "BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP" like explosions in a lateral motion but...
BOP (Hand moves down)
BOP (Hand moves down)
BOP (Hand moves down)
BOP (Hand moves down)
BOP (Hand moves down)
BOP (Hand moves down)
...as in horizontal floors landing on one another. Yes, an acre of concrete flooring landing on one another makes a sound on earth. That sound is loud, one can even say it would sound like an explosion" and it would fit. If you need a physics paper for this I feel sorry for you. Anyone who ever swung a sledge hammer to concrete knows it makes noise.
I remember seeing one of the videos taken from street level and you can hear the "BOP's" get progressively faster until it becomes a rumble.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 28 2006, 08:05 PM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 27 2006, 08:41 PM)
Quote;RC
So it seems (there's another 'iffy' word, heh?) that you have learned NOTHING from you CTers' debacle with the firemen MISquotes where they heard what "sounded like explosions" when they were describing the 'progressive booms' of the floors pancaking. Are "seems", "appears", "looks like" and "sounds like" your whole criteria for what is observed in all these cases? Don't you apply logic, experience, common sense and Occam's Razor at all? Ever? Never?
Let's get this straight: The fire men were saying and gesturing; to a regular beat of - BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP......and you suggest, they were referencing sequential floor impacts?
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
100floors/12sec.=8.3floors per sec.
100floors/14sec.=7.1floors per sec.
It's still a RHYTHMIC BLUR that could not be readily translated into the BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP insinuations and gesticulations indicated by the fireman on the video.
Good effort at side stepping the central meaning of my original post, though.
On the contrary, 7.1 floors per second still only translates to 0.14 sec per floor. Over a tenth of a second between sounds can certainly be distinquished by the human ear.
Furthermore it has been pointed out to you that falling objects accellerate and therefore the first collapsing floors would be doing so slower than the last. That means that the first floors collapsing would have seen more than 0.14 sec between floors making it even more distinquishable. The chaotic situation of the falling debris would soon (say within the first 4 seconds) have the boom-boom-boom , give way to a steady rumble.
So it seems (there's another 'iffy' word, heh?) that you have learned NOTHING from you CTers' debacle with the firemen MISquotes where they heard what "sounded like explosions" when they were describing the 'progressive booms' of the floors pancaking. Are "seems", "appears", "looks like" and "sounds like" your whole criteria for what is observed in all these cases? Don't you apply logic, experience, common sense and Occam's Razor at all? Ever? Never?
Let's get this straight: The fire men were saying and gesturing; to a regular beat of - BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP......and you suggest, they were referencing sequential floor impacts?
OK. Lets lop off 10 floors, to account for the upper section. 110-10=100 floor (story's) left to fall.
OK. Lets use 10 sec. as the fall time.
OK. 10sec./100floors=0.1sec.per floor or 10 floors per sec.
Ok. 60bpm is considered average tempo in music and is 01bps. One/one thousand--two/one thousand--three/one thousand.....
OK. 120bpm is fast and 180bpm is like, speed metal, it's flying. 02bps and 03bps
OK. 600bpm or 10bps, cannot be expressed as BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP.....by normal human beings.
OK. So they were referencing something else!
100floors/12sec.=8.3floors per sec.
100floors/14sec.=7.1floors per sec.
It's still a RHYTHMIC BLUR that could not be readily translated into the BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP-BOP insinuations and gesticulations indicated by the fireman on the video.
Good effort at side stepping the central meaning of my original post, though.
On the contrary, 7.1 floors per second still only translates to 0.14 sec per floor. Over a tenth of a second between sounds can certainly be distinquished by the human ear.
Furthermore it has been pointed out to you that falling objects accellerate and therefore the first collapsing floors would be doing so slower than the last. That means that the first floors collapsing would have seen more than 0.14 sec between floors making it even more distinquishable. The chaotic situation of the falling debris would soon (say within the first 4 seconds) have the boom-boom-boom , give way to a steady rumble.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 28 2006, 04:36 PM)
i have yet to pay penny one for anything related to 911, other than internet access and time.
No, but its even better you work for free, just like a sheepdog, herding other morons like yourself to the CT sites.
How many times HAVE you posted a link to a CT site?
How many Sheeple have you herded?
Arthur
No, but its even better you work for free, just like a sheepdog, herding other morons like yourself to the CT sites.
How many times HAVE you posted a link to a CT site?
How many Sheeple have you herded?
Arthur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 28 2006, 04:55 PM)
On the contrary, 7.1 floors per second still only translates to 0.14 sec per floor. Over a tenth of a second between sounds can certainly be distinquished by the human ear.
Furthermore it has been pointed out to you that falling objects accellerate and therefore the first collapsing floors would be doing so slower than the last. That means that the first floors collapsing would have seen more than 0.14 sec between floors making it even more distinquishable. The chaotic situation of the falling debris would soon (say within the first 4 seconds) have the boom-boom-boom , give way to a steady rumble.
I'm pretty sure after the first few
BOP
BOP
BOP
BOP
BOP
BOP
Anyone who was going to be left to give an interview had turned and booked
Arthur
Furthermore it has been pointed out to you that falling objects accellerate and therefore the first collapsing floors would be doing so slower than the last. That means that the first floors collapsing would have seen more than 0.14 sec between floors making it even more distinquishable. The chaotic situation of the falling debris would soon (say within the first 4 seconds) have the boom-boom-boom , give way to a steady rumble.
I'm pretty sure after the first few
BOP
BOP
BOP
BOP
BOP
BOP
Anyone who was going to be left to give an interview had turned and booked
Arthur
The other thing is these people aren't recording devices playing back the sound for you in real time.
Another important item I think I'm the only one who realizes... These people were in the middle of a terrorist attack in a building which was bombed less than 10 years before. It's not unreasonable for them to jump to a conclution that the loud sounds of falling concrete and steel were bombs going off. If they flew two plains into the buildings, for all they know they might have also blown them up. It was chaos at the time.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PDF
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PDF
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 DIDN'T KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING -Captain Karin Deshore
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110172.PDF
Another important item I think I'm the only one who realizes... These people were in the middle of a terrorist attack in a building which was bombed less than 10 years before. It's not unreasonable for them to jump to a conclution that the loud sounds of falling concrete and steel were bombs going off. If they flew two plains into the buildings, for all they know they might have also blown them up. It was chaos at the time.
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
QUOTE (->
| 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
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 DIDN'T KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING -Captain Karin Deshore
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
QUOTE
what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110172.PDF
In the case of the HMS Sheffield the Exocet missile raised the temp of a sufficiently large portion of the ship's structure that it did start burning even though it was a huge mass of aluminum and was sitting in cold south Atlantic waters.
Common fallacy. The Sheffield was a steel hull and a steel superstructure.
Gordon.
Common fallacy. The Sheffield was a steel hull and a steel superstructure.
Gordon.
Some common ingredients for producing colour in fireworks,
Red strontium salts, lithium salts
lithium carbonate, Li2CO3 = red
strontium carbonate, SrCO3 = bright red
Orange calcium salts
calcium chloride, CaCl2
calcium sulfate, CaSO4·xH2O, where x = 0,2,3,5
Gold incandescence of iron (with carbon), charcoal, or lampblack
Yellow sodium compounds
sodium nitrate, NaNO3
cryolite, Na3AlF6
Electric White white-hot metal, such as magnesium or aluminum
barium oxide, BaO
Green barium compounds + chlorine producer
barium chloride, BaCl+ = bright green
Blue copper compounds + chlorine producer
copper acetoarsenite (Paris Green), Cu3As2O3Cu(C2H3O2)2 = blue
copper (I) chloride, CuCl = turquoise blue
Purple mixture of strontium (red) and copper (blue) compounds
Silver burning aluminum, titanium, or magnesium powder or flakes
The most common firework, the sparkler, also uses aluminium.
Gordon.
Red strontium salts, lithium salts
lithium carbonate, Li2CO3 = red
strontium carbonate, SrCO3 = bright red
Orange calcium salts
calcium chloride, CaCl2
calcium sulfate, CaSO4·xH2O, where x = 0,2,3,5
Gold incandescence of iron (with carbon), charcoal, or lampblack
Yellow sodium compounds
sodium nitrate, NaNO3
cryolite, Na3AlF6
Electric White white-hot metal, such as magnesium or aluminum
barium oxide, BaO
Green barium compounds + chlorine producer
barium chloride, BaCl+ = bright green
Blue copper compounds + chlorine producer
copper acetoarsenite (Paris Green), Cu3As2O3Cu(C2H3O2)2 = blue
copper (I) chloride, CuCl = turquoise blue
Purple mixture of strontium (red) and copper (blue) compounds
Silver burning aluminum, titanium, or magnesium powder or flakes
The most common firework, the sparkler, also uses aluminium.
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 28 2006, 06:49 PM)
In the case of the HMS Sheffield the Exocet missile raised the temp of a sufficiently large portion of the ship's structure that it did start burning even though it was a huge mass of aluminum and was sitting in cold south Atlantic waters.
Common fallacy. The Sheffield was a steel hull and a steel superstructure.
Gordon.
'Tis true,
'Twas the Antelope and Ardent that had the Aluminum superstructure. Both were sunk along with the Sheffield in the Falklands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Antelope_%28F170%29
Arthur
Common fallacy. The Sheffield was a steel hull and a steel superstructure.
Gordon.
'Tis true,
'Twas the Antelope and Ardent that had the Aluminum superstructure. Both were sunk along with the Sheffield in the Falklands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Antelope_%28F170%29
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 09:02 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 28 2006, 04:36 PM)
i have yet to pay penny one for anything related to 911, other than internet access and time.
No, but its even better you work for free, just like a sheepdog, herding other morons like yourself to the CT sites.
How many times HAVE you posted a link to a CT site?
How many Sheeple have you herded?
Arthur
go back and look through the thread, because the answer is, not many.
i consciously chose NOT to link to anything. i only mentioned 911eyewitness a few times because it is the ONLY place to see certain evidence(read helicopter flashes and spire collapse).
you can get it free in many places.
the amount of money haliburton makes in one hour would probably dwarf an entire year's worth of advertising revenues from alex jones' site.
'capitalists' build a 'capitalist society' that demands everyone spend every minute in pursuit of the almighty buck, and then complain when people, who need to spend all their time and effort and MONEY to spread the word of truth, make a profit. what a bunch of hypocrites.
if alex jones financial statement shows a loss, will you believe him then, idiot? is that how you determine 'truth'? by how much money it generates?
the arsoNIST report cost twenty million, so it's CHOCK'FULL'O'TRUTH, while, any independent operator's information will automatically be rendered false by virtue of:
the profit law of conspiracy physics. the truth of a conspiracy theory is inversely proportional to the amount of cash generated by the conspiracy website.
there WILL be a test.
the various conspiracy sites don't all agree on all the details, and indeed some are at each other's throats.
the questions are 'why don't you want people to look at evidence', and, 'why do you care if morons and losers and ct's provide revenue for conspiracy profiteers?'.
No, but its even better you work for free, just like a sheepdog, herding other morons like yourself to the CT sites.
How many times HAVE you posted a link to a CT site?
How many Sheeple have you herded?
Arthur
go back and look through the thread, because the answer is, not many.
i consciously chose NOT to link to anything. i only mentioned 911eyewitness a few times because it is the ONLY place to see certain evidence(read helicopter flashes and spire collapse).
you can get it free in many places.
the amount of money haliburton makes in one hour would probably dwarf an entire year's worth of advertising revenues from alex jones' site.
'capitalists' build a 'capitalist society' that demands everyone spend every minute in pursuit of the almighty buck, and then complain when people, who need to spend all their time and effort and MONEY to spread the word of truth, make a profit. what a bunch of hypocrites.
if alex jones financial statement shows a loss, will you believe him then, idiot? is that how you determine 'truth'? by how much money it generates?
the arsoNIST report cost twenty million, so it's CHOCK'FULL'O'TRUTH, while, any independent operator's information will automatically be rendered false by virtue of:
the profit law of conspiracy physics. the truth of a conspiracy theory is inversely proportional to the amount of cash generated by the conspiracy website.
there WILL be a test.
the various conspiracy sites don't all agree on all the details, and indeed some are at each other's throats.
the questions are 'why don't you want people to look at evidence', and, 'why do you care if morons and losers and ct's provide revenue for conspiracy profiteers?'.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 11:11 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 28 2006, 06:49 PM)
In the case of the HMS Sheffield the Exocet missile raised the temp of a sufficiently large portion of the ship's structure that it did start burning even though it was a huge mass of aluminum and was sitting in cold south Atlantic waters.
Common fallacy. The Sheffield was a steel hull and a steel superstructure.
Gordon.
'Tis true,
'Twas the Antelope and Ardent that had the Aluminum superstructure. Both were sunk along with the Sheffield in the Falklands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Antelope_%28F170%29
Arthur
You know when I first searched I did so for the Antelope as that wwas what I recalled being the ship that burned but with all the nature sites that gor returned I changed it to a search for "Falklands" and up popped an article about Sheffield.
I should have looked further since all I was doing was checking on the name of the ship.
My bad.
Further checking reveals that The Royal Navy's switch to steel appears to be a result of a 1977 fire in the frigate Amazon. In the US Navy, the switch from aluminum to steel superstructures was a result of the 1975 collision between the carrier John F. Kennedy and the cruiser Belknap. The collision caused major fires aboard the cruiser, and her aluminum superstructure essentially melted; she was reduced to a badly burnt hulk.
(source wikipedia)
the various conspiracy sites don't all agree on all the details, and indeed some are at each other's throats.
the questions are 'why don't you want people to look at evidence', and, 'why do you care if morons and losers and ct's provide revenue for conspiracy profiteers?'.
Of course they are at each other's throats.
Each is pedelling their version of the "TRUTH".
I want people to look at the evidence.
I want people to read the NIST report and compare it to the evidence.
What I FIND is, as we've seen on this forum a LOT of LIES and Quotes taken out of context and slick pitches that LEAD people to conclusions that are NOT supported by the evidence presented.
Like "Pull it" is evidence that the Fire dept and Silverstein were "in on the CD"
BS
Like the fires were almost out
BS
Like the fires were "cool" because of the black smoke
BS
Like the fires were cool because a woman was seen standing on the upwind side
BS
Like it Fell FASTER than Free Fall
BS
Like it fell NEARLY as fast as Free Fall
BS
Like small random puffs of air/debris are squibs
BS
Like Hoffman and his PYROCLASTIC cloud
BS
Or the AVERAGE SIZE OF THE CONCRETE was 60 microns.
BS
Or 100 ton pieces were thrown 600 feet.
BS.
Or streams of melted steel were flowing in the basement of the WTC
BS
Or, more to the point, like you newton, with your Helos and flashes of light, which are supposedly EVIDENCE of MANPADS.
BS.
Turns out you were wrong and STILL won't admit it.
So go heard some more sheeple, though its too bad you DON'T know who YOU are working for.
Arthur
Common fallacy. The Sheffield was a steel hull and a steel superstructure.
Gordon.
'Tis true,
'Twas the Antelope and Ardent that had the Aluminum superstructure. Both were sunk along with the Sheffield in the Falklands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Antelope_%28F170%29
Arthur
You know when I first searched I did so for the Antelope as that wwas what I recalled being the ship that burned but with all the nature sites that gor returned I changed it to a search for "Falklands" and up popped an article about Sheffield.
I should have looked further since all I was doing was checking on the name of the ship.
My bad.
Further checking reveals that The Royal Navy's switch to steel appears to be a result of a 1977 fire in the frigate Amazon. In the US Navy, the switch from aluminum to steel superstructures was a result of the 1975 collision between the carrier John F. Kennedy and the cruiser Belknap. The collision caused major fires aboard the cruiser, and her aluminum superstructure essentially melted; she was reduced to a badly burnt hulk.
(source wikipedia)
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Feb 28 2006, 09:07 AM)
In reply to RC who asked for an MPEG of the Camera Planet video, try this:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.mpg
The Scholars group is/are working on more papers and doubtless people will deny and ridicule the evidence in them, as they have the simple facts of free-fall/near free fall (the attitude to which still kind of baffles me really). There are a couple of other items of physical evidence being discussed - and I guess they may have already gone through the "vitriol and ridicule mill" in this list of 6000+ replies - I just haven't had chance to read all of this.
I think the most significant evidence to come to light which again supports CD is the above video. Towards the end of the clip, there seems to be quite a large quantity of orange material coming out, the camera zooms to the helicopter, then back to the collapse. How strange.
Prof Jones has posted a reply to Greenings ideas re Aluminium reaction. This is posted on st911.org, in case no one has already posted the link:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc
For anyone who wants to hear Prof Jim Fetzer, Prof Morgan Reynolds and Prof Griffin's broadcast, use this link:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/...2023%202006.mp3
19.2 megs, 111 mins or so playback.
What interested me about the broadcast were the callers at the end - as I recall, there were at least 2 who just politicised the issue. A shame. "Ha - that's the science of a Democrat!" (Yes, I know they didn't say that, but that seemed to be the attiitude.)
C2C's summary here:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/02/23.html
If anyone wants to look at Steve Jones USVC Presentation, try this page:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/
Thanks Andrew! I appreciate the trouble you must have gone to in order to help me out with access to those images which all you guys take as a matter of course, hehehe. True to form, My non-standard and clunky system plus the still-'iffy' internet line/service out here in the 'Regions', conspired to make it take 'ages' to finally download in one go without being rejected half-way through or my 'line' dropping out!
I got it, though; so again, many thanks for the 'mpg' version of the vid that you guys have been discussing. Cheers!
RC.
.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten...0from%20WTC.mpg
The Scholars group is/are working on more papers and doubtless people will deny and ridicule the evidence in them, as they have the simple facts of free-fall/near free fall (the attitude to which still kind of baffles me really). There are a couple of other items of physical evidence being discussed - and I guess they may have already gone through the "vitriol and ridicule mill" in this list of 6000+ replies - I just haven't had chance to read all of this.
I think the most significant evidence to come to light which again supports CD is the above video. Towards the end of the clip, there seems to be quite a large quantity of orange material coming out, the camera zooms to the helicopter, then back to the collapse. How strange.
Prof Jones has posted a reply to Greenings ideas re Aluminium reaction. This is posted on st911.org, in case no one has already posted the link:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc
For anyone who wants to hear Prof Jim Fetzer, Prof Morgan Reynolds and Prof Griffin's broadcast, use this link:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/...2023%202006.mp3
19.2 megs, 111 mins or so playback.
What interested me about the broadcast were the callers at the end - as I recall, there were at least 2 who just politicised the issue. A shame. "Ha - that's the science of a Democrat!" (Yes, I know they didn't say that, but that seemed to be the attiitude.)
C2C's summary here:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/02/23.html
If anyone wants to look at Steve Jones USVC Presentation, try this page:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/
Thanks Andrew! I appreciate the trouble you must have gone to in order to help me out with access to those images which all you guys take as a matter of course, hehehe. True to form, My non-standard and clunky system plus the still-'iffy' internet line/service out here in the 'Regions', conspired to make it take 'ages' to finally download in one go without being rejected half-way through or my 'line' dropping out!
I got it, though; so again, many thanks for the 'mpg' version of the vid that you guys have been discussing. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 28 2006, 07:13 PM)
the various conspiracy sites don't all agree on all the details, and indeed some are at each other's throats.
the questions are 'why don't you want people to look at evidence', and, 'why do you care if morons and losers and ct's provide revenue for conspiracy profiteers?'.
Of course they are at each other's throats.
Each is pedelling their version of the "TRUTH".
I want people to look at the evidence.
I want people to read the NIST report and compare it to the evidence.
What I FIND is, as we've seen on this forum a LOT of LIES and Quotes taken out of context and slick pitches that LEAD people to conclusions that are NOT supported by the evidence presented.
Like "Pull it" is evidence that the Fire dept and Silverstein were "in on the CD"
BS
Like the fires were almost out
BS
Like the fires were "cool" because of the black smoke
BS
Like the fires were cool because a woman was seen standing on the upwind side
BS
Like it Fell FASTER than Free Fall
BS
Like it fell NEARLY as fast as Free Fall
BS
Like small random puffs of air/debris are squibs
BS
Like Hoffman and his PYROCLASTIC cloud
BS
Or the AVERAGE SIZE OF THE CONCRETE was 60 microns.
BS
Or 100 ton pieces were thrown 600 feet.
BS.
Or streams of melted steel were flowing in the basement of the WTC
BS
Or, more to the point, like you newton, with your Helos and flashes of light, which are supposedly EVIDENCE of MANPADS.
BS.
Turns out you were wrong and STILL won't admit it.
So go heard some more sheeple, though its too bad you DON'T know who YOU are working for.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 11:24 PM)
So go heard some more sheeple, though its too bad you DON'T know who YOU are working for.
Arthur
i'm working against the android meme. that's all i know.
Arthur
i'm working against the android meme. that's all i know.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 28 2006, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 11:24 PM)
So go heard some more sheeple, though its too bad you DON'T know who YOU are working for.
Arthur
i'm working against the android meme. that's all i know.
Then ALL you know is wrong.
Pity.
Arthur
As you are aware of, one poster asked for specifics. A reply was made but the link to the specifics was incorrect yet no one picked up on it as it sat uncorrected for two days. The poster who asked for it posted several times during this time. It is quite obvious that no CT ever tried the link otherwise they would have questioned it.
Most of the CT's care not to actually look into NIST reports. They will instead allow Foxx or Jones or Hufschmid to tell them what NIST says.
As you are aware of, one poster asked for specifics. A reply was made but the link to the specifics was incorrect yet no one picked up on it as it sat uncorrected for two days. The poster who asked for it posted several times during this time. It is quite obvious that no CT ever tried the link otherwise they would have questioned it.
Most of the CT's care not to actually look into NIST reports. They will instead allow Foxx or Jones or Hufschmid to tell them what NIST says.
They are too busy scrambling around trying to find some other "unexplained" nothing to then make a big deal about and then DEMAND TO KNOW WHY THERE ARE NO ANSWERS.
Sheesh.
What is CLEAR to me, is that each and everyone of their original points has fallen once it was looked at.
The CTers COUNT on people NOT looking into their BS, because it obviously doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.
The WTC collapse is a tad more complex issue but the Pentagon is a slam dunk.
Finally, when I look at the posts of YID, Schneibster, Common Sense, RC and Coastal I find reasonable people trying to EXPLAIN things, not SELL things. Doing research and posting from SCIENCE sites. These are people I could hang with and discuss something BESIDES the WTC towers.
When I look at posts by Frater, Rove's Shill, Foxx, Galdur, Steve1957, Brian I find unreasonable people posting links to CT sites, posting the same proven lies over and over. Most importantly, these are people I wouldn't want to share a beer with.
Arthur
Arthur
i'm working against the android meme. that's all i know.
Then ALL you know is wrong.
Pity.
Arthur
A Legend in the making states -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
After looking at such evidence as -
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
He explains -
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
After looking at such evidence as -
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
He explains -
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
QUOTE
Of course they are at each other's throats.
Each is pedelling their version of the "TRUTH".
I want people to look at the evidence.
I want people to read the NIST report and compare it to the evidence.
Each is pedelling their version of the "TRUTH".
I want people to look at the evidence.
I want people to read the NIST report and compare it to the evidence.
As you are aware of, one poster asked for specifics. A reply was made but the link to the specifics was incorrect yet no one picked up on it as it sat uncorrected for two days. The poster who asked for it posted several times during this time. It is quite obvious that no CT ever tried the link otherwise they would have questioned it.
Most of the CT's care not to actually look into NIST reports. They will instead allow Foxx or Jones or Hufschmid to tell them what NIST says.
Just in case anyone was puzzled by the difference between the figure given for the ignition temperature of 515 C and the melting temperature of 600 Cish, it should be noted that the ignition temperature is the lowest temperature at which combustion of flammable air/fuel mixture becomes self-sustaining (that is, the air/gas mixture continues to burn without external heat input).
That does not mean that if you heat up aluminium to above 515 C it will spontaneously combust nor combust upon the application of a flame.
However if you powderise it then disperse it through the air with a combustion source, then stand back. But then again the same applies for sugar.
Gordon.
That does not mean that if you heat up aluminium to above 515 C it will spontaneously combust nor combust upon the application of a flame.
However if you powderise it then disperse it through the air with a combustion source, then stand back. But then again the same applies for sugar.
Gordon.
The NIST report gives us a "probable" scenario leading to "initiation of collapse"
This whilst they ignore a great deal of evidence
What use is that?
Jones Foxx etc give us facts which show how improbable the NIST report is.
That is of use.
Easy Peasy
This whilst they ignore a great deal of evidence
What use is that?
Jones Foxx etc give us facts which show how improbable the NIST report is.
That is of use.
Easy Peasy
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 28 2006, 07:35 PM)
QUOTE
Of course they are at each other's throats.
Each is pedelling their version of the "TRUTH".
I want people to look at the evidence.
I want people to read the NIST report and compare it to the evidence.
Each is pedelling their version of the "TRUTH".
I want people to look at the evidence.
I want people to read the NIST report and compare it to the evidence.
As you are aware of, one poster asked for specifics. A reply was made but the link to the specifics was incorrect yet no one picked up on it as it sat uncorrected for two days. The poster who asked for it posted several times during this time. It is quite obvious that no CT ever tried the link otherwise they would have questioned it.
Most of the CT's care not to actually look into NIST reports. They will instead allow Foxx or Jones or Hufschmid to tell them what NIST says.
They are too busy scrambling around trying to find some other "unexplained" nothing to then make a big deal about and then DEMAND TO KNOW WHY THERE ARE NO ANSWERS.
Sheesh.
What is CLEAR to me, is that each and everyone of their original points has fallen once it was looked at.
The CTers COUNT on people NOT looking into their BS, because it obviously doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.
The WTC collapse is a tad more complex issue but the Pentagon is a slam dunk.
Finally, when I look at the posts of YID, Schneibster, Common Sense, RC and Coastal I find reasonable people trying to EXPLAIN things, not SELL things. Doing research and posting from SCIENCE sites. These are people I could hang with and discuss something BESIDES the WTC towers.
When I look at posts by Frater, Rove's Shill, Foxx, Galdur, Steve1957, Brian I find unreasonable people posting links to CT sites, posting the same proven lies over and over. Most importantly, these are people I wouldn't want to share a beer with.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 11:30 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 28 2006, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 11:24 PM)
So go heard some more sheeple, though its too bad you DON'T know who YOU are working for.
Arthur
i'm working against the android meme. that's all i know.
Then ALL you know is wrong.
Pity.
Arthur
really. what's the android meme? are you so pope-ish as to tell me i'm wrong about something you nothing about?
pity, your perception doesn't fall far from the tree.
Arthur
i'm working against the android meme. that's all i know.
Then ALL you know is wrong.
Pity.
Arthur
really. what's the android meme? are you so pope-ish as to tell me i'm wrong about something you nothing about?
pity, your perception doesn't fall far from the tree.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 28 2006, 08:30 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 11:30 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 28 2006, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 11:24 PM)
So go heard some more sheeple, though its too bad you DON'T know who YOU are working for.
Arthur
i'm working against the android meme. that's all i know.
Then ALL you know is wrong.
Pity.
Arthur
really. what's the android meme? are you so pope-ish as to tell me i'm wrong about something you nothing about?
pity, your perception doesn't fall far from the tree.
The Android Meme is technology that has the qualities of "being alive". The Android Meme wants to join with us in an unholy alliance of archetypal technology and human organism. Imagine the scene in Matrix: Revolutions when the robots form a talking head that asks Neo what he truly wants. The face is not human but instead a combination of all these shapeshifting robots speaking for the Architect. Similarly, the Android Meme is a cacophony of all media, all technology and all ideas of particular times, anthropomorphized, trying to make itself human. There is no great architect of the Meme besides our compliance to feed it. We actually download the archetype of the Android Meme into our nervous systems through television and multimedia.
I assumed you were still on the Matrix bent.
Wasn't all he knew "Wrong"
Arthur
PS Would you have gotten it if I wrote:
Then ALL you know is wrong.
Arthur
The Android Meme is technology that has the qualities of "being alive". The Android Meme wants to join with us in an unholy alliance of archetypal technology and human organism. Imagine the scene in Matrix: Revolutions when the robots form a talking head that asks Neo what he truly wants. The face is not human but instead a combination of all these shapeshifting robots speaking for the Architect. Similarly, the Android Meme is a cacophony of all media, all technology and all ideas of particular times, anthropomorphized, trying to make itself human. There is no great architect of the Meme besides our compliance to feed it. We actually download the archetype of the Android Meme into our nervous systems through television and multimedia.
I assumed you were still on the Matrix bent.
Wasn't all he knew "Wrong"
Arthur
PS Would you have gotten it if I wrote:
Then ALL you know is wrong.
Arthur
***, arthur. i'm impressed.
however, it's not really a Matrix bent. more of a finnegan's wake bent.
Arthur
i'm working against the android meme. that's all i know.
Then ALL you know is wrong.
Pity.
Arthur
really. what's the android meme? are you so pope-ish as to tell me i'm wrong about something you nothing about?
pity, your perception doesn't fall far from the tree.
The Android Meme is technology that has the qualities of "being alive". The Android Meme wants to join with us in an unholy alliance of archetypal technology and human organism. Imagine the scene in Matrix: Revolutions when the robots form a talking head that asks Neo what he truly wants. The face is not human but instead a combination of all these shapeshifting robots speaking for the Architect. Similarly, the Android Meme is a cacophony of all media, all technology and all ideas of particular times, anthropomorphized, trying to make itself human. There is no great architect of the Meme besides our compliance to feed it. We actually download the archetype of the Android Meme into our nervous systems through television and multimedia.
I assumed you were still on the Matrix bent.
Wasn't all he knew "Wrong"
Arthur
PS Would you have gotten it if I wrote:
Then ALL you know is wrong.
Arthur
QUOTE (brian+Feb 28 2006, 11:35 PM)
A Legend in the making states -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
After looking at such evidence as -
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
He explains -
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper in a main stream journal on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.
Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.
The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.
In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.
Origins and the experiment
In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns, then removing them from a board, then putting them back in, and so forth. Subjects rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave.
However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the subject was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some subjects were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks, those in the $1 group showed a much greater propensity to embellish in favor of the experiment when asked to lie about the tasks. Experimenters theorized that when paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, which the experimenters claim explains their lesser willingness to lie favoring the tasks in the experiment.
The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by literally changing their attitude in a process akin to autobrainwashing in order really to believe that they found the tasks enjoyable.
Put simply, the experimenters concluded that human beings, when asked to lie without being given sufficient justification, will convince themselves that the lie they are asked to tell is the truth. Only when sufficient justification is given, researchers speculated, are human beings able to resist having their mind instantly reprogrammed by any request that they lie.
Festinger further tested his theory on observations of counterintuitive belief persistence of most members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
After looking at such evidence as -
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
He explains -
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
For those who may think no one has written a peer reviewed paper in a main stream journal on the collapse of the towers here it is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.
Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.
The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.
In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.
Origins and the experiment
In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns, then removing them from a board, then putting them back in, and so forth. Subjects rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave.
However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the subject was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some subjects were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks, those in the $1 group showed a much greater propensity to embellish in favor of the experiment when asked to lie about the tasks. Experimenters theorized that when paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, which the experimenters claim explains their lesser willingness to lie favoring the tasks in the experiment.
The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by literally changing their attitude in a process akin to autobrainwashing in order really to believe that they found the tasks enjoyable.
Put simply, the experimenters concluded that human beings, when asked to lie without being given sufficient justification, will convince themselves that the lie they are asked to tell is the truth. Only when sufficient justification is given, researchers speculated, are human beings able to resist having their mind instantly reprogrammed by any request that they lie.
Festinger further tested his theory on observations of counterintuitive belief persistence of most members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
QUOTE (brian+Feb 28 2006, 11:45 PM)
The NIST report gives us a "probable" scenario leading to "initiation of collapse"
This whilst they ignore a great deal of evidence
What use is that?
Jones Foxx etc give us facts which show how improbable the NIST report is.
That is of use.
Easy Peasy
Brian, Jones is lying to you and so are your parents. Santa isn't real either.
This whilst they ignore a great deal of evidence
What use is that?
Jones Foxx etc give us facts which show how improbable the NIST report is.
That is of use.
Easy Peasy
Brian, Jones is lying to you and so are your parents. Santa isn't real either.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 28 2006, 09:06 AM)
Molten aluminum at 800C will have an red-orange glow unless there is a slag over it. If you pour a pot of aluminum at 800C, you are going to see red-orange.
There's nothing inconsistent with aluminum being at 800C and pouring out a window on WTC2 with a red-orange color. The fires were hot enough to bring it to that temperature.
Aluminium at ambient temperature, melting point and at 800 C is silver. Not orange, not red, not yellow. The molten metal could be described by orange, red or yellow, but not silver. Therefore it is not aluminium.
It's possible there may have been thermite reactions occurring between the aluminum and building materials that raised the temperature of the aluminum higher than what the fires alone could have produced.
The evidence and experiment of Professor Jones state otherwise, there is no historical precedent that I know of for this, and there has been no detail supplied regarding any possible or plausible chemical reaction to account for this.
The reaction involving molten aluminium and concrete is not a thermite reaction and does not rely on the aluminium for its effect. Instead it is the heat acting on the entrapped water in the concrete causing explosive spalling of the concrete. You can get exactly the same reaction by lighting a wood bonfire on a concrete floor.
Gordon.
According to this the ignition temp for Thermite is 1200C
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Chemical...rmite_synthesis
Don't know if this is correct, but way back when I dabbled in pyrotechnics I do know that you can't EASILY light thermite, I used to use magnesium ribbon, which lights easily and burns VERY hot. (note, magnesium is used in aircraft, as an alloy in the landing gear, but also as part of the control surfaces)
But, IF this is true, it would appear to make the "experiment" performed by Jones useless.
Anyone got a second source on the ignition temp for thermite?
Arthur
There's nothing inconsistent with aluminum being at 800C and pouring out a window on WTC2 with a red-orange color. The fires were hot enough to bring it to that temperature.
Aluminium at ambient temperature, melting point and at 800 C is silver. Not orange, not red, not yellow. The molten metal could be described by orange, red or yellow, but not silver. Therefore it is not aluminium.
It's possible there may have been thermite reactions occurring between the aluminum and building materials that raised the temperature of the aluminum higher than what the fires alone could have produced.
The evidence and experiment of Professor Jones state otherwise, there is no historical precedent that I know of for this, and there has been no detail supplied regarding any possible or plausible chemical reaction to account for this.
The reaction involving molten aluminium and concrete is not a thermite reaction and does not rely on the aluminium for its effect. Instead it is the heat acting on the entrapped water in the concrete causing explosive spalling of the concrete. You can get exactly the same reaction by lighting a wood bonfire on a concrete floor.
Gordon.
According to this the ignition temp for Thermite is 1200C
QUOTE
The mixture can be ignited by 5 party sparklers taped together as this reaches the ignition temperatures required (1200 C).
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Chemical...rmite_synthesis
Don't know if this is correct, but way back when I dabbled in pyrotechnics I do know that you can't EASILY light thermite, I used to use magnesium ribbon, which lights easily and burns VERY hot. (note, magnesium is used in aircraft, as an alloy in the landing gear, but also as part of the control surfaces)
But, IF this is true, it would appear to make the "experiment" performed by Jones useless.
Anyone got a second source on the ignition temp for thermite?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 12:40 AM)
The Android Meme is technology that has the qualities of "being alive". The Android Meme wants to join with us in an unholy alliance of archetypal technology and human organism. Imagine the scene in Matrix: Revolutions when the robots form a talking head that asks Neo what he truly wants. The face is not human but instead a combination of all these shapeshifting robots speaking for the Architect. Similarly, the Android Meme is a cacophony of all media, all technology and all ideas of particular times, anthropomorphized, trying to make itself human. There is no great architect of the Meme besides our compliance to feed it. We actually download the archetype of the Android Meme into our nervous systems through television and multimedia.
I assumed you were still on the Matrix bent.
Wasn't all he knew "Wrong"
Arthur
PS Would you have gotten it if I wrote:
Then ALL you know is wrong.
Arthur
***, arthur. i'm impressed.
however, it's not really a Matrix bent. more of a finnegan's wake bent.
QUOTE (guesticulator+Feb 28 2006, 03:12 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 28 2006, 02:02 AM)
Hi Andrew Johnson!
As everyone knows by now, my PC is old and non-standard, and I can only view JPGs and MPGs.
Do you have that referenced material of yours available in jpg/mpg? Thanks.
Oh, how are you coming along with "looking at evidence"? Any new hypotheses; or support for previous hypotheses? Thanks.
RC.
.
RC,
This is just another of your riduculous, unfounded claims. I had no idea until after you posted this that you had an old, non-standard claim. Please try to live up to your name and keep your posts in the realm of reality.
.
Hi guesticulator. Please see the highlighted passage relating to this matter in Foxx's post below.
.
As everyone knows by now, my PC is old and non-standard, and I can only view JPGs and MPGs.
Do you have that referenced material of yours available in jpg/mpg? Thanks.
Oh, how are you coming along with "looking at evidence"? Any new hypotheses; or support for previous hypotheses? Thanks.
RC.
.
RC,
This is just another of your riduculous, unfounded claims. I had no idea until after you posted this that you had an old, non-standard claim. Please try to live up to your name and keep your posts in the realm of reality.
.
Hi guesticulator. Please see the highlighted passage relating to this matter in Foxx's post below.
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 28 2006, 08:13 AM)
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
BWAAAAhahahahaha !!!
That's good, Schneiby... Nice debunking site
Well, I guess that proves a couple of things, doesn't it.
It's good to know the Schneibster and his band of merry men ... are doing their best to stomp out the 'terrorist sympathizers'.
Any particular reason you used the 'time-lapse' schematic of the fires integrated over the entire period on your fire page?
Perhaps to enlighten?
I think it could easily lead to confusion or misinformation for those who haven't read the documents you are referring to.
It certainly could fool a lot of people.
Perhaps it was just a simple mistake on your part.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/fire00a.jpg
I'll get back to this issue when I get everything put together, but it's good you put that site up... it gives me something to work with.
----------------
One of my problems is that I have too many files and am not a great file-organizer (along with having to work in the real world) which also cuts down on my available computer time.
----------------
RC, I will apologize for forgetting that you were on limited bandwidth. Having forgotten about that I may have been a little nasty in my frustration.
Given that you haven't seen the videos that we have been discussing I can understand how you are not seeing what we see. Still photos don't really give the full effect. One needs to see the FLOW we are taking about here. I will try to remember that your visualizations are not enhanced by being able to access the NIST or FEMA documents. Most of these are in adobe format and some do not allow cut & paste for easy dissemination, so I have transcribed the following pages from NIST for your benefit. The 'links' for the actual documents are below.
I finally found one of the items which I have been desperately looking for since the molten metal video popped up. I knew I had it saved somewhere.
jpeg images of the NIST pages 'cached'...
page 34 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2a.jpg
page 35 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b.jpg
-----------------
North East Corner of WTC 2
9:45 a.m. to Collapse of WTC 2 at 9:58:59 a.m.
Did someone say puffs of smoke?
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Actually, according to Video 1 (below) I see the time of flow being closer to ~ 30 seconds, but who's really counting seconds ?
If the collapse time quoted by NIST is at 9:58:59 a.m.... and these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust were starting to appear by 9:52 a.m.... according to my calculations, that would mean these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust' would be occuring preceeding the collapse, wouldn't it ?
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Actually, according to Video 1 (below) I see the time of flow being closer to ~ 30 seconds, but who's really counting seconds ?
If the collapse time quoted by NIST is at 9:58:59 a.m.... and these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust were starting to appear by 9:52 a.m.... according to my calculations, that would mean these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust' would be occuring preceeding the collapse, wouldn't it ?
Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location prior to the collapse of the tower. Several were accompanied by puffs of dust and smoke that were now occuring frequently.
The composition of the flowing material can only be hypothesized, but it is considered likely that it was molten aluminum that came from aircraft debris located immediately above on the 81st floor and had been heated by the fire burning on that floor. Shortly after 9:53 a.m. the fire that had been burning on the eastern edge of the 81st floor since the aircraft impact suddenly died down, revealing the windows above on the 82nd floor.
A hanging object was visible through these windows that appeared to be a dislodged corner section of the 83rd floor slab. The hanging objects present in and near the cold spot were also visible in images taken during the period.
At 9:58:59 a.m. WTC began to collapse. Videos show that the only place flames were pushed out of windows on the north face was from the burning area near the western edge of the 79th floor.
A fourth short-lived (again roughly a minute) release of heavy smoke and flame from windows on the 79th and 80th floors of the east face occured around 9:45 a.m. Three additional, somewhat less intense, releases lasting similar lengths of time around 9:47 a.m., around 9:52 a.m., and just before 9:56 a.m. Smoke puffs, similar to those seen earlier, occured multiple times during this period.
At the start of the period the fire located in the center of the northern half of the face on the 79th floor continued to burn vigorously, only dying down near the end.
A similar burning area became visible on the 80th floor just to the south of the fire on the 79th floor around 9:55 a.m. Much of this area had been hidden up to this time by smoke coming from below. A substantial fire continued to burn on the 82nd floor near the northern edge of the face. The fire in the northeast corner was generally gently burning, but would occasionally flare up. During the period the position of the hanging object visible through the windows on the 82nd floor moved again, with the northermost window where it first became visible shifting slightly to the north.
A prominent feature on the east face during the period was the inward bowing of the the outer wall. This can be seen clearly over the 79th to 82nd floors in
Figure 2-11 which was taken less than a minute before the collapse started.
"During the 20 seconds prior to the collapse a large number of pieces of debris fell from the northern sides of the 80th and 81st floors. The falling debris coincided with a heavy flow of molten metal from the north face.
When WTC 2 collapsed very little flame was expelled from the east face windows. Based upon observations elsewhere on the two towers, regions of intense burning would have been expected to generate short-lived jets of flames. Their absence suggest that large fires were not burning near the face at the time of collapse."
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Video 1 {Length - 2:49}
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
Video 2 {Length - 0:47}
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
Question :
If "large fires were NOT burning" near the northeast corner, as evidenced by the above videos and the lack of flames expelled at the time of the collapse, what was precipitating the "heavy flow of molten metal" from this corner of the building where the fires had all but died out ?
Some (including NIST spokespersons) have speculated that it might have been molten aluminum.
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
It certainly looks to me like some large structural beam which is 'melting' and collapsing, yet ... very little fire.
.
Thank you, Foxx, for your honest and considerate recall/confirmation of my 'unenviable' situation re access to anything other than my memory and you guys’ descriptions in this thread for my hypothesising/inputs here. I hope that "guesticulator"-----please see above-top post-----is now au fait with my 'circumstances' (which all here who have read my past posts would have realised by now).
Andrew Johnson took pity on me and did me a great favour by providing an 'mpg' version of one of those many videos that you guys can obviously take for granted (in any version!....you lucky stiffs!).
Anyhow, I've watched Andrews’ linked 'mpg', and came to some further 'speculations' which I wish to put to you guys 'without prejudice' for your comments in return?.....which comments I hope will be similarly 'without prejudice'. Here goes.......
You will recall, from my recent speculations regarding the 'component' materials in the molten 'cascade' of orange-yellow 'globs' issuing from the face of the building facing the camera, that I intimated the 'dirtiness' and 'chaotic' nature of the combustion/compounding/shifting processes going on prior to local collapse. I especially called your attention to the variety of elements which may be 'involved' in the 'by-product of such 'accidental' reactions/combinations which would reasonably be expected to occur given the office/plane/building materials present and the range of temperatures produced over time/locations throughout the 'fire-involved' levels. I would now like to pursue that aspect in more detail, with the view of explaining to those not familiar with the various 'by-products' and 'dynamical' aggregations/movements of those likely products in the 'molten' state' under the circumstances described in yours and others' various posts.
I recall in some of your most recent informative posts, that there was actually 'damage' to floor structures and ceilings, such that things shifted about as the collapse time neared, as evidenced by various sections of ceiling-floor materials/structures 'hanging', and molten by-product 'flowing'falling' from the relevant levels into levels below (because of localised MORE SEVERE areas of impact/fire damage to floor-ceiling concrete membrane/steel truss structure, and movements of accumulated 'ash', debris and molten material made to 'shift' as the 'final' collapse neared (brought on by the heat-distorted/weakened trusses/columns finally 'buckling' under the loads/stresses that such impact damaged and fire-weakened/distorted steel structures were not designed to experience/endure).
So the scene is set:
Random 'piles' of a variety of impact damaged and crushed, burning materials of all sorts (metallic and non-metallic), combined/reacted/fused together under conditions of intense heat/temperatures (your own recently posted info confirms the structural damage and widespread/intense fire in various places/floors over time).
Now, if you research 'GLASS' and its various types, both man-made and naturally occurring, you will find that there are a variety of same, with a variety of melting points and colours dependent on their main/added constituent materials and/or 'impurities'.
In fact, there are SILICON-OXIDE glasses, either 'straight' or with added metal/non-metal 'impurities' for desired colour and/or thermo-mechanical properties (eg, PYREX includes much BORON); and there are METALLIC-OXIDE glasses with properties specific to the metal(s) involved and the 'melting/cooling' regime employed.
If you read up on ALL the POSSIBLE 'combinations/types' of possible glasses, you will also come across those ACCIDENTAL 'glasses' produced due to:
- volcano heat/materials/processes (Obsidian etc); and
- Ore-smelting/foundry processes ('glassy' Slags).
Knowing all that, it is no longer out of the question that MUCH 'accidental' GLASSY 'pools' would have formed/accumulated under those burning piles of debris which, considering the materials present in the towers/planes, could be reasonably supposed to ALSO contain LARGE and 'piled up' QUANTITIES of:
- ACTUAL 'straight/formulated' MAN-MADE GLASSES from WINDOWS and plane/office LIGHTING/FIXTURES/EQUIPMENT;
- ACCIDENTAL GLASSY "slags' formed by random reaction/fusing of the various metallic and non-metallic materials shredded/crushed and 'piled-up' into INTERIOR 'bonfires' at various locations/levels.
Now, as I intimated in my previous post, I think it LIKELY that MUCH POOLING and SHIFTING of such accidental glowing 'glassy slags' (plus glowing embers/particulates and still-liquid-metal-aluminium etc) would have been produced in that hour of fires and material combinations/reactions (between Aluminium and other Metal-Oxides from planes/buildings, Hydrocarbons from jetfuel and office furnishing/equipment and Silicon-Oxides from WINDOWS etc. ......which would ALREADY have represent/provided a great quantity of STRAIGHT 'molten glass' to contribute to any 'pools' of glassy accumulations in various areas/levels).
Hence the final 'speculations' re that yellow-orange 'molten cascade'......
(1) On many impact/fire involved levels there would have been expected to be pooling/accumulation of much 'glassy slag' by-products from the Silicaceuos, carbonaceous and other metallic/non-metalic materials affected by the physical/thermodynamical processes involved/observed. These would have contained both PRE-EXISTING 'VITREOUS' and ACCIDENTAL by-product 'METALLIC/VITREOUS' etc dirty/random 'glassy products'. Any objections so far?
(2) As observed/evidenced by all the 'falling/hanging' materials/structures, all of which (plus displaced air) would have been reasonably assumed to have disturbed/ejected smoke/hot dust as affected fire areas would 'flare-up', the happenings WITHIN the building on various levels just prior to terminal local collapse of the affected levels, would have SHIFTED and CASCADED much material from one level to the ones below, possibly starting NEW pockets of fire on yet unconsumed 'piles'.
(3) As your information now supports, the floor membranes were 'breached' and things falling down until they would have accumulated on some lower level where thefloor 'membrane' had not yet been breached or separated/sagged appreciably away from the outer walls. This would lead to MUCH GLASSY SLAG AND EMBERS AND DEBRIS ACCUMULATING ON THAT 'LOWEST' COLLECTION POINT for materials falling from upper 'breached' floor membranes.
(4) I can therefore envisage that, at some RANDOM points which did NOT give way until collapse was imminent, at least SOME of all that ACCIDENTAL/EXISTING 'glass/glassy' stuff must be hot and 'runny' and 'voluminous' enough to produce at least SOME orange-yellow 'glowing' cascades from SOME points along the outer walls where a heretofore 'unbreached/unseparated' floor caused ACCUMULATED and VERY HOT 'molten' material to 'cascade outside' as seen.
(5) The colours/spectrums of such would have represented a MIXTURE of all the random 'glasses' that would have been involved in that molten/flowing discharge (reminding me of the orange-yellow 'molten discharges' of 'glassy slags' from those 'batch-molten' metal smeltings at ironworks).
(6) Also, depending on the main components/impurities in the various parts of that discharge, the GLASS at various points would have shown their PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTIC ‘chemical/thermo-dynamic COLOUR spectrums. That is, some glass 'blobs' would have been redder/yellower/clearer/dirtier etc than others, EVEN IF THEY HAD BEEN 'COLD' AND 'SOLID'!!!! So the 'colours' seen would have been an amalgam of wavelengths due to BOTH the TEMPERATURE and the ACTUAL 'CHEMICAL' COLOUR of the 'glasses' produced.
(7) Lastly, as can be seen from the video, the 'molten cascade' breaks apart into 'runny blobs' of various sizes...this would be consistent with what would occur given a similar 'manufactured cascade’ of ANY 'runny-hot' GLASS product (whether man-made or accidental 'glass') in the quantities accumulated and over the distance cascaded.
So as far as I can speculate given the conditions/materials/processes, I would plumb for a 'glowing' and 'runny-hot' cascade of 'glassy-slag'-like material accumulated (and probably entraining much hot embers/debris not yet fully ‘dissolved/reacted/consumed’) on that floor/area and finally 'released' to escape/overflow as seen....mainly due to final-moments SHIFTING AND PARTIAL COLLAPSING INSIDE before the WHOLE upper section collapsed. And the various PUFFS and FLARE-UPS would have been caused by all that evidenced last-minute crumbling/falling/hanging/forced-drafting chaos INTERNALLY on the affected levels JUST AS THE FINAL STRUCTURAL LOCAL COLLAPSE WAS DEVELOPING to its whole-top climax of chaotic noise and movement.
That's it as far as the information available to me allows me to speculate. I hope this will help separate the possible/prosaic from the improbable/exotic 'speculations' to date, and to assist in 'closing in' on the likely events/explanations in that case. I shall leave it to anyone to come back with any comments/information that would indicate that any/all of the above points are valid/invalid. That would be appreciated/welcomed, either way. I shall look in again in a couple of days, after keeping some much-delayed promises elsewhere.
I lastly again remind everyone that owing to PC/LINE constraints, I am unable to do all the ready reasearch/cut-and-paste from ON-LINE sources like you guys have ready access to. And also that, consequently, I am working purely from memory here. But it will be but a moment's work for you all to confirm all the
principles/processes I have alluded to in my above 'speculations'. Good luck to every 'scientific' and 'impartial' and 'reasonable' truthseeker here. Cheers, Foxx, Andrew (thanks again for the mpg!) and all!
RC.
.
BWAAAAhahahahaha !!!
That's good, Schneiby... Nice debunking site
Well, I guess that proves a couple of things, doesn't it.
It's good to know the Schneibster and his band of merry men ... are doing their best to stomp out the 'terrorist sympathizers'.
Any particular reason you used the 'time-lapse' schematic of the fires integrated over the entire period on your fire page?
Perhaps to enlighten?
I think it could easily lead to confusion or misinformation for those who haven't read the documents you are referring to.
It certainly could fool a lot of people.
Perhaps it was just a simple mistake on your part.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/fire00a.jpg
I'll get back to this issue when I get everything put together, but it's good you put that site up... it gives me something to work with.
----------------
One of my problems is that I have too many files and am not a great file-organizer (along with having to work in the real world) which also cuts down on my available computer time.
----------------
RC, I will apologize for forgetting that you were on limited bandwidth. Having forgotten about that I may have been a little nasty in my frustration.
Given that you haven't seen the videos that we have been discussing I can understand how you are not seeing what we see. Still photos don't really give the full effect. One needs to see the FLOW we are taking about here. I will try to remember that your visualizations are not enhanced by being able to access the NIST or FEMA documents. Most of these are in adobe format and some do not allow cut & paste for easy dissemination, so I have transcribed the following pages from NIST for your benefit. The 'links' for the actual documents are below.
I finally found one of the items which I have been desperately looking for since the molten metal video popped up. I knew I had it saved somewhere.
jpeg images of the NIST pages 'cached'...
page 34 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2a.jpg
page 35 - jpeg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b.jpg
-----------------
North East Corner of WTC 2
9:45 a.m. to Collapse of WTC 2 at 9:58:59 a.m.
Did someone say puffs of smoke?
QUOTE
Near the start of the period several small fires were observed for the first time near the center of the cold spot on the north face at the 81st & 82nd floors. Fires elsewhere on the face were generally dying down at this time. During the period, the fire burning on the 79th floor continued to spread to the west. By the time of collapse, the flames were approaching, but had not yet reached, the west face. Around 9:54 a.m. a fire grew just to the west of the cold spot on the 82nd floor, and began to spread westward, covering 8 windows by the time of collapse. The fire that had earlier spread in the same direction on the 83rd floor did not appear to migrate farther. A small spot fire was observed near the center of the 84th floor, suggesting that the fire on the 83rd floor had spread upward. Closeup photographs and videos during the period revealed a distinct outward bulge of the steel columns in the vicinity of the debris pile in the center of the 79th floor.
Just before 9:52 a.m. puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location. This flow lasted approximately 4 seconds before subsiding.
Just before 9:52 a.m. puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location. This flow lasted approximately 4 seconds before subsiding.
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Actually, according to Video 1 (below) I see the time of flow being closer to ~ 30 seconds, but who's really counting seconds ?
If the collapse time quoted by NIST is at 9:58:59 a.m.... and these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust were starting to appear by 9:52 a.m.... according to my calculations, that would mean these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust' would be occuring preceeding the collapse, wouldn't it ?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Near the start of the period several small fires were observed for the first time near the center of the cold spot on the north face at the 81st & 82nd floors. Fires elsewhere on the face were generally dying down at this time. During the period, the fire burning on the 79th floor continued to spread to the west. By the time of collapse, the flames were approaching, but had not yet reached, the west face. Around 9:54 a.m. a fire grew just to the west of the cold spot on the 82nd floor, and began to spread westward, covering 8 windows by the time of collapse. The fire that had earlier spread in the same direction on the 83rd floor did not appear to migrate farther. A small spot fire was observed near the center of the 84th floor, suggesting that the fire on the 83rd floor had spread upward. Closeup photographs and videos during the period revealed a distinct outward bulge of the steel columns in the vicinity of the debris pile in the center of the 79th floor. Just before 9:52 a.m. puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location. This flow lasted approximately 4 seconds before subsiding. |
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Actually, according to Video 1 (below) I see the time of flow being closer to ~ 30 seconds, but who's really counting seconds ?
If the collapse time quoted by NIST is at 9:58:59 a.m.... and these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust were starting to appear by 9:52 a.m.... according to my calculations, that would mean these 'puffs of smoke and/or dust' would be occuring preceeding the collapse, wouldn't it ?
Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location prior to the collapse of the tower. Several were accompanied by puffs of dust and smoke that were now occuring frequently.
The composition of the flowing material can only be hypothesized, but it is considered likely that it was molten aluminum that came from aircraft debris located immediately above on the 81st floor and had been heated by the fire burning on that floor. Shortly after 9:53 a.m. the fire that had been burning on the eastern edge of the 81st floor since the aircraft impact suddenly died down, revealing the windows above on the 82nd floor.
A hanging object was visible through these windows that appeared to be a dislodged corner section of the 83rd floor slab. The hanging objects present in and near the cold spot were also visible in images taken during the period.
At 9:58:59 a.m. WTC began to collapse. Videos show that the only place flames were pushed out of windows on the north face was from the burning area near the western edge of the 79th floor.
A fourth short-lived (again roughly a minute) release of heavy smoke and flame from windows on the 79th and 80th floors of the east face occured around 9:45 a.m. Three additional, somewhat less intense, releases lasting similar lengths of time around 9:47 a.m., around 9:52 a.m., and just before 9:56 a.m. Smoke puffs, similar to those seen earlier, occured multiple times during this period.
At the start of the period the fire located in the center of the northern half of the face on the 79th floor continued to burn vigorously, only dying down near the end.
A similar burning area became visible on the 80th floor just to the south of the fire on the 79th floor around 9:55 a.m. Much of this area had been hidden up to this time by smoke coming from below. A substantial fire continued to burn on the 82nd floor near the northern edge of the face. The fire in the northeast corner was generally gently burning, but would occasionally flare up. During the period the position of the hanging object visible through the windows on the 82nd floor moved again, with the northermost window where it first became visible shifting slightly to the north.
A prominent feature on the east face during the period was the inward bowing of the the outer wall. This can be seen clearly over the 79th to 82nd floors in
Figure 2-11 which was taken less than a minute before the collapse started.
"During the 20 seconds prior to the collapse a large number of pieces of debris fell from the northern sides of the 80th and 81st floors. The falling debris coincided with a heavy flow of molten metal from the north face.
When WTC 2 collapsed very little flame was expelled from the east face windows. Based upon observations elsewhere on the two towers, regions of intense burning would have been expected to generate short-lived jets of flames. Their absence suggest that large fires were not burning near the face at the time of collapse."
source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf (pg 34 - 35)
Video 1 {Length - 2:49}
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
Video 2 {Length - 0:47}
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...=9%2F11+footage
Question :
If "large fires were NOT burning" near the northeast corner, as evidenced by the above videos and the lack of flames expelled at the time of the collapse, what was precipitating the "heavy flow of molten metal" from this corner of the building where the fires had all but died out ?
Some (including NIST spokespersons) have speculated that it might have been molten aluminum.
Personally I doubt that because as NIST says...
QUOTE
"A hanging object was visible through these windows that appeared to be a dislodged corner section of the 83rd floor slab. The hanging objects present in and near the cold spot were also visible in images taken during the period."
It certainly looks to me like some large structural beam which is 'melting' and collapsing, yet ... very little fire.
.
Thank you, Foxx, for your honest and considerate recall/confirmation of my 'unenviable' situation re access to anything other than my memory and you guys’ descriptions in this thread for my hypothesising/inputs here. I hope that "guesticulator"-----please see above-top post-----is now au fait with my 'circumstances' (which all here who have read my past posts would have realised by now).
Andrew Johnson took pity on me and did me a great favour by providing an 'mpg' version of one of those many videos that you guys can obviously take for granted (in any version!....you lucky stiffs!).
Anyhow, I've watched Andrews’ linked 'mpg', and came to some further 'speculations' which I wish to put to you guys 'without prejudice' for your comments in return?.....which comments I hope will be similarly 'without prejudice'. Here goes.......
You will recall, from my recent speculations regarding the 'component' materials in the molten 'cascade' of orange-yellow 'globs' issuing from the face of the building facing the camera, that I intimated the 'dirtiness' and 'chaotic' nature of the combustion/compounding/shifting processes going on prior to local collapse. I especially called your attention to the variety of elements which may be 'involved' in the 'by-product of such 'accidental' reactions/combinations which would reasonably be expected to occur given the office/plane/building materials present and the range of temperatures produced over time/locations throughout the 'fire-involved' levels. I would now like to pursue that aspect in more detail, with the view of explaining to those not familiar with the various 'by-products' and 'dynamical' aggregations/movements of those likely products in the 'molten' state' under the circumstances described in yours and others' various posts.
I recall in some of your most recent informative posts, that there was actually 'damage' to floor structures and ceilings, such that things shifted about as the collapse time neared, as evidenced by various sections of ceiling-floor materials/structures 'hanging', and molten by-product 'flowing'falling' from the relevant levels into levels below (because of localised MORE SEVERE areas of impact/fire damage to floor-ceiling concrete membrane/steel truss structure, and movements of accumulated 'ash', debris and molten material made to 'shift' as the 'final' collapse neared (brought on by the heat-distorted/weakened trusses/columns finally 'buckling' under the loads/stresses that such impact damaged and fire-weakened/distorted steel structures were not designed to experience/endure).
So the scene is set:
Random 'piles' of a variety of impact damaged and crushed, burning materials of all sorts (metallic and non-metallic), combined/reacted/fused together under conditions of intense heat/temperatures (your own recently posted info confirms the structural damage and widespread/intense fire in various places/floors over time).
Now, if you research 'GLASS' and its various types, both man-made and naturally occurring, you will find that there are a variety of same, with a variety of melting points and colours dependent on their main/added constituent materials and/or 'impurities'.
In fact, there are SILICON-OXIDE glasses, either 'straight' or with added metal/non-metal 'impurities' for desired colour and/or thermo-mechanical properties (eg, PYREX includes much BORON); and there are METALLIC-OXIDE glasses with properties specific to the metal(s) involved and the 'melting/cooling' regime employed.
If you read up on ALL the POSSIBLE 'combinations/types' of possible glasses, you will also come across those ACCIDENTAL 'glasses' produced due to:
- volcano heat/materials/processes (Obsidian etc); and
- Ore-smelting/foundry processes ('glassy' Slags).
Knowing all that, it is no longer out of the question that MUCH 'accidental' GLASSY 'pools' would have formed/accumulated under those burning piles of debris which, considering the materials present in the towers/planes, could be reasonably supposed to ALSO contain LARGE and 'piled up' QUANTITIES of:
- ACTUAL 'straight/formulated' MAN-MADE GLASSES from WINDOWS and plane/office LIGHTING/FIXTURES/EQUIPMENT;
- ACCIDENTAL GLASSY "slags' formed by random reaction/fusing of the various metallic and non-metallic materials shredded/crushed and 'piled-up' into INTERIOR 'bonfires' at various locations/levels.
Now, as I intimated in my previous post, I think it LIKELY that MUCH POOLING and SHIFTING of such accidental glowing 'glassy slags' (plus glowing embers/particulates and still-liquid-metal-aluminium etc) would have been produced in that hour of fires and material combinations/reactions (between Aluminium and other Metal-Oxides from planes/buildings, Hydrocarbons from jetfuel and office furnishing/equipment and Silicon-Oxides from WINDOWS etc. ......which would ALREADY have represent/provided a great quantity of STRAIGHT 'molten glass' to contribute to any 'pools' of glassy accumulations in various areas/levels).
Hence the final 'speculations' re that yellow-orange 'molten cascade'......
(1) On many impact/fire involved levels there would have been expected to be pooling/accumulation of much 'glassy slag' by-products from the Silicaceuos, carbonaceous and other metallic/non-metalic materials affected by the physical/thermodynamical processes involved/observed. These would have contained both PRE-EXISTING 'VITREOUS' and ACCIDENTAL by-product 'METALLIC/VITREOUS' etc dirty/random 'glassy products'. Any objections so far?
(2) As observed/evidenced by all the 'falling/hanging' materials/structures, all of which (plus displaced air) would have been reasonably assumed to have disturbed/ejected smoke/hot dust as affected fire areas would 'flare-up', the happenings WITHIN the building on various levels just prior to terminal local collapse of the affected levels, would have SHIFTED and CASCADED much material from one level to the ones below, possibly starting NEW pockets of fire on yet unconsumed 'piles'.
(3) As your information now supports, the floor membranes were 'breached' and things falling down until they would have accumulated on some lower level where thefloor 'membrane' had not yet been breached or separated/sagged appreciably away from the outer walls. This would lead to MUCH GLASSY SLAG AND EMBERS AND DEBRIS ACCUMULATING ON THAT 'LOWEST' COLLECTION POINT for materials falling from upper 'breached' floor membranes.
(4) I can therefore envisage that, at some RANDOM points which did NOT give way until collapse was imminent, at least SOME of all that ACCIDENTAL/EXISTING 'glass/glassy' stuff must be hot and 'runny' and 'voluminous' enough to produce at least SOME orange-yellow 'glowing' cascades from SOME points along the outer walls where a heretofore 'unbreached/unseparated' floor caused ACCUMULATED and VERY HOT 'molten' material to 'cascade outside' as seen.
(5) The colours/spectrums of such would have represented a MIXTURE of all the random 'glasses' that would have been involved in that molten/flowing discharge (reminding me of the orange-yellow 'molten discharges' of 'glassy slags' from those 'batch-molten' metal smeltings at ironworks).
(6) Also, depending on the main components/impurities in the various parts of that discharge, the GLASS at various points would have shown their PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTIC ‘chemical/thermo-dynamic COLOUR spectrums. That is, some glass 'blobs' would have been redder/yellower/clearer/dirtier etc than others, EVEN IF THEY HAD BEEN 'COLD' AND 'SOLID'!!!! So the 'colours' seen would have been an amalgam of wavelengths due to BOTH the TEMPERATURE and the ACTUAL 'CHEMICAL' COLOUR of the 'glasses' produced.
(7) Lastly, as can be seen from the video, the 'molten cascade' breaks apart into 'runny blobs' of various sizes...this would be consistent with what would occur given a similar 'manufactured cascade’ of ANY 'runny-hot' GLASS product (whether man-made or accidental 'glass') in the quantities accumulated and over the distance cascaded.
So as far as I can speculate given the conditions/materials/processes, I would plumb for a 'glowing' and 'runny-hot' cascade of 'glassy-slag'-like material accumulated (and probably entraining much hot embers/debris not yet fully ‘dissolved/reacted/consumed’) on that floor/area and finally 'released' to escape/overflow as seen....mainly due to final-moments SHIFTING AND PARTIAL COLLAPSING INSIDE before the WHOLE upper section collapsed. And the various PUFFS and FLARE-UPS would have been caused by all that evidenced last-minute crumbling/falling/hanging/forced-drafting chaos INTERNALLY on the affected levels JUST AS THE FINAL STRUCTURAL LOCAL COLLAPSE WAS DEVELOPING to its whole-top climax of chaotic noise and movement.
That's it as far as the information available to me allows me to speculate. I hope this will help separate the possible/prosaic from the improbable/exotic 'speculations' to date, and to assist in 'closing in' on the likely events/explanations in that case. I shall leave it to anyone to come back with any comments/information that would indicate that any/all of the above points are valid/invalid. That would be appreciated/welcomed, either way. I shall look in again in a couple of days, after keeping some much-delayed promises elsewhere.
I lastly again remind everyone that owing to PC/LINE constraints, I am unable to do all the ready reasearch/cut-and-paste from ON-LINE sources like you guys have ready access to. And also that, consequently, I am working purely from memory here. But it will be but a moment's work for you all to confirm all the
principles/processes I have alluded to in my above 'speculations'. Good luck to every 'scientific' and 'impartial' and 'reasonable' truthseeker here. Cheers, Foxx, Andrew (thanks again for the mpg!) and all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 02:35 PM)
Metamars
Hoffman makes several assertions, but the KEY ones are that it took MORE energy to crush the concrete to an average 60 micron size than was in the total PE of the towers.
The KEY to this assertion is that the average size was 60 microns.
There IS NO PROOF FOR THIS ASSERTION.
The other assertions have to do with the EXPANSION of the dust cloud, which Hoffman ASSUMES is driven by heat.
There is NO PROOF the cloud was Pyroclastic in nature (his 1,000+ K average temperature)
Thus NONE of his assertions hold up.
He's a fool, but you're a WORSE fool for believing his BS and claiming for 6 months that it doesn't STINK.
Arthur
What about the following don't you understand?
Hoffman makes several assertions, but the KEY ones are that it took MORE energy to crush the concrete to an average 60 micron size than was in the total PE of the towers.
The KEY to this assertion is that the average size was 60 microns.
There IS NO PROOF FOR THIS ASSERTION.
The other assertions have to do with the EXPANSION of the dust cloud, which Hoffman ASSUMES is driven by heat.
There is NO PROOF the cloud was Pyroclastic in nature (his 1,000+ K average temperature)
Thus NONE of his assertions hold up.
He's a fool, but you're a WORSE fool for believing his BS and claiming for 6 months that it doesn't STINK.
Arthur
What about the following don't you understand?
QUOTE
As has been reiterated before, the energy sink associated with heating far exceeded that of grinding/puverisation.
Wow,
That's a lot of speculation.
For what I consider a totally insignificant event in the overall scheme of things that day.
The fires were hot, there is no question about that.
I believe they were in fact hotter than NIST estimates (which is why I suspect they had to take the higher end of their REASONABLE variables)
The reason is simple, aircraft crashes result in HOT fires all by themselves.
There is AMPLE evidence of this in the literature.
Aircraft contain a LOT of exotic materials, a lot of which can produce very high temps all on their own.
In 96 a ValueJet DC-9 crashed in the Everglades when unsecured Oxygen generating canisters in the hold caught fire and MELTED the high tensile strength steel control cables. Now that's hot. There were over 100 of these cannisters on each plane. There were magnesium alloy wheels, and carbon fiber laminates and hydraulic fluids and grease and who the heck knows what else in the hold of that plane. So this wasn't a TYPICAL office fire. It wasn't even a typical office.
The point is, the plane ALSO burnt, you see ANY pieces of plane in the debris pile?
In ALL those pictures we've looked at?
I've seen a few, very small pieces of the plane, but they weren't in the debris pile, they had gone through the towers and were lying in the street or on top of other buildings.
So speculating on WHAT melted and cascaded out that window a few minutes before the tower collapsed is an interesting diversion, but it is unlikely to actually be a significant cause related to the collapse.
IMHO
Arthur
That's a lot of speculation.
For what I consider a totally insignificant event in the overall scheme of things that day.
The fires were hot, there is no question about that.
I believe they were in fact hotter than NIST estimates (which is why I suspect they had to take the higher end of their REASONABLE variables)
The reason is simple, aircraft crashes result in HOT fires all by themselves.
There is AMPLE evidence of this in the literature.
Aircraft contain a LOT of exotic materials, a lot of which can produce very high temps all on their own.
In 96 a ValueJet DC-9 crashed in the Everglades when unsecured Oxygen generating canisters in the hold caught fire and MELTED the high tensile strength steel control cables. Now that's hot. There were over 100 of these cannisters on each plane. There were magnesium alloy wheels, and carbon fiber laminates and hydraulic fluids and grease and who the heck knows what else in the hold of that plane. So this wasn't a TYPICAL office fire. It wasn't even a typical office.
The point is, the plane ALSO burnt, you see ANY pieces of plane in the debris pile?
In ALL those pictures we've looked at?
I've seen a few, very small pieces of the plane, but they weren't in the debris pile, they had gone through the towers and were lying in the street or on top of other buildings.
So speculating on WHAT melted and cascaded out that window a few minutes before the tower collapsed is an interesting diversion, but it is unlikely to actually be a significant cause related to the collapse.
IMHO
Arthur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 28 2006, 11:20 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 11:11 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 28 2006, 06:49 PM)
In the case of the HMS Sheffield the Exocet missile raised the temp of a sufficiently large portion of the ship's structure that it did start burning even though it was a huge mass of aluminum and was sitting in cold south Atlantic waters.
Common fallacy. The Sheffield was a steel hull and a steel superstructure.
Gordon.
'Tis true,
'Twas the Antelope and Ardent that had the Aluminum superstructure. Both were sunk along with the Sheffield in the Falklands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Antelope_%28F170%29
Arthur
You know when I first searched I did so for the Antelope as that wwas what I recalled being the ship that burned but with all the nature sites that gor returned I changed it to a search for "Falklands" and up popped an article about Sheffield.
I should have looked further since all I was doing was checking on the name of the ship.
My bad.
Further checking reveals that The Royal Navy's switch to steel appears to be a result of a 1977 fire in the frigate Amazon. In the US Navy, the switch from aluminum to steel superstructures was a result of the 1975 collision between the carrier John F. Kennedy and the cruiser Belknap. The collision caused major fires aboard the cruiser, and her aluminum superstructure essentially melted; she was reduced to a badly burnt hulk.
(source wikipedia)
Hi yesitdid!
I have a vague memory of reading something at the time of the events that, while most of the superstructure was steel, the rear 'sleeping/living/mess' quarters were aluminium (internally, I think). Was that ALSO a 'reporter/journalist error' about Sheffield? Were they talking of that other ship?
And if there was NO appreciable aluminium, then that WOULD mean that the SHEFFIELD STEEL fire WAS hot enough to 'burn out' STEEL PLATE, heh?
RC
.
Common fallacy. The Sheffield was a steel hull and a steel superstructure.
Gordon.
'Tis true,
'Twas the Antelope and Ardent that had the Aluminum superstructure. Both were sunk along with the Sheffield in the Falklands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Antelope_%28F170%29
Arthur
You know when I first searched I did so for the Antelope as that wwas what I recalled being the ship that burned but with all the nature sites that gor returned I changed it to a search for "Falklands" and up popped an article about Sheffield.
I should have looked further since all I was doing was checking on the name of the ship.
My bad.
Further checking reveals that The Royal Navy's switch to steel appears to be a result of a 1977 fire in the frigate Amazon. In the US Navy, the switch from aluminum to steel superstructures was a result of the 1975 collision between the carrier John F. Kennedy and the cruiser Belknap. The collision caused major fires aboard the cruiser, and her aluminum superstructure essentially melted; she was reduced to a badly burnt hulk.
(source wikipedia)
Hi yesitdid!
I have a vague memory of reading something at the time of the events that, while most of the superstructure was steel, the rear 'sleeping/living/mess' quarters were aluminium (internally, I think). Was that ALSO a 'reporter/journalist error' about Sheffield? Were they talking of that other ship?
And if there was NO appreciable aluminium, then that WOULD mean that the SHEFFIELD STEEL fire WAS hot enough to 'burn out' STEEL PLATE, heh?
RC
.
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 28 2006, 10:50 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 02:35 PM)
Metamars
Hoffman makes several assertions, but the KEY ones are that it took MORE energy to crush the concrete to an average 60 micron size than was in the total PE of the towers.
The KEY to this assertion is that the average size was 60 microns.
There IS NO PROOF FOR THIS ASSERTION.
The other assertions have to do with the EXPANSION of the dust cloud, which Hoffman ASSUMES is driven by heat.
There is NO PROOF the cloud was Pyroclastic in nature (his 1,000+ K average temperature)
Thus NONE of his assertions hold up.
He's a fool, but you're a WORSE fool for believing his BS and claiming for 6 months that it doesn't STINK.
Arthur
What about the following don't you understand?
Metamars,
His assertions on the HEAT of the material don't hold up.
The EXPANSION of the cloud was NOT driven by heat because the CLOUD was NOT pyroclastic.
What is it about this you don't understand?
Arthur
Hoffman makes several assertions, but the KEY ones are that it took MORE energy to crush the concrete to an average 60 micron size than was in the total PE of the towers.
The KEY to this assertion is that the average size was 60 microns.
There IS NO PROOF FOR THIS ASSERTION.
The other assertions have to do with the EXPANSION of the dust cloud, which Hoffman ASSUMES is driven by heat.
There is NO PROOF the cloud was Pyroclastic in nature (his 1,000+ K average temperature)
Thus NONE of his assertions hold up.
He's a fool, but you're a WORSE fool for believing his BS and claiming for 6 months that it doesn't STINK.
Arthur
What about the following don't you understand?
QUOTE
As has been reiterated before, the energy sink associated with heating far exceeded that of grinding/puverisation.
Metamars,
His assertions on the HEAT of the material don't hold up.
The EXPANSION of the cloud was NOT driven by heat because the CLOUD was NOT pyroclastic.
What is it about this you don't understand?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 12:40 AM)
The Android Meme is technology that has the qualities of "being alive". The Android Meme wants to join with us in an unholy alliance of archetypal technology and human organism. Imagine the scene in Matrix: Revolutions when the robots form a talking head that asks Neo what he truly wants. The face is not human but instead a combination of all these shapeshifting robots speaking for the Architect. Similarly, the Android Meme is a cacophony of all media, all technology and all ideas of particular times, anthropomorphized, trying to make itself human. There is no great architect of the Meme besides our compliance to feed it. We actually download the archetype of the Android Meme into our nervous systems through television and multimedia.
Arthur's quote is a little edited, here is the full text which can also be found at http://www.eightbit.com/rebirth_of_bob_dobbs.php
The Android Meme wants to join with us in an unholy alliance of archetypal technology and human organism. Imagine the scene in Matrix: Revolutions when the robots (Bob calls people that behave like robots organic robotoids) form a talking head that asks Neo what he truly wants. The face is not human but instead a combination of all these shapeshifting robots speaking for the Architect. Similarly, the Android Meme is a cacophony of all media, all technology and all ideas of particular times, anthropomorphized, trying to make itself human. There is no great architect of the Meme besides our compliance to feed it. By Bob calling it archetypal he simply means there is no physical joining (like a true android who is made up of organism and implants) but rather, like mythic thinking, in the Jungian sense, where people mime/behave cues from technology when it becomes used by a million people and becomes environment (morphic resonance). Taking on a behaviour is not holeopathic enough for Bob. We actually download the archetype of the Android Meme into our nervous systems through television and multimedia. A perfect example is cellphone posturing and how that invades public space to create a socially free zone where those on the other end of a piece of technology are present to the caller while others in the three-dimensional space are invisible ( Derrida's "the absence of presence" ).
Arthur's quote is a little edited, here is the full text which can also be found at http://www.eightbit.com/rebirth_of_bob_dobbs.php
The Android Meme wants to join with us in an unholy alliance of archetypal technology and human organism. Imagine the scene in Matrix: Revolutions when the robots (Bob calls people that behave like robots organic robotoids) form a talking head that asks Neo what he truly wants. The face is not human but instead a combination of all these shapeshifting robots speaking for the Architect. Similarly, the Android Meme is a cacophony of all media, all technology and all ideas of particular times, anthropomorphized, trying to make itself human. There is no great architect of the Meme besides our compliance to feed it. By Bob calling it archetypal he simply means there is no physical joining (like a true android who is made up of organism and implants) but rather, like mythic thinking, in the Jungian sense, where people mime/behave cues from technology when it becomes used by a million people and becomes environment (morphic resonance). Taking on a behaviour is not holeopathic enough for Bob. We actually download the archetype of the Android Meme into our nervous systems through television and multimedia. A perfect example is cellphone posturing and how that invades public space to create a socially free zone where those on the other end of a piece of technology are present to the caller while others in the three-dimensional space are invisible ( Derrida's "the absence of presence" ).
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 02:53 AM)
Wow,
That's a lot of speculation.
For what I consider a totally insignificant event in the overall scheme of things that day.
The fires were hot, there is no question about that.
I believe they were in fact hotter than NIST estimates (which is why I suspect they had to take the higher end of their REASONABLE variables)
The reason is simple, aircraft crashes result in HOT fires all by themselves.
There is AMPLE evidence of this in the literature.
Aircraft contain a LOT of exotic materials, a lot of which can produce very high temps all on their own.
In 96 a ValueJet DC-9 crashed in the Everglades when unsecured Oxygen generating canisters in the hold caught fire and MELTED the high tensile strength steel control cables. Now that's hot. There were over 100 of these cannisters on each plane. There were magnesium alloy wheels, and carbon fiber laminates and hydraulic fluids and grease and who the heck knows what else in the hold of that plane. So this wasn't a TYPICAL office fire. It wasn't even a typical office.
The point is, the plane ALSO burnt, you see ANY pieces of plane in the debris pile?
In ALL those pictures we've looked at?
I've seen a few, very small pieces of the plane, but they weren't in the debris pile, they had gone through the towers and were lying in the street or on top of other buildings.
So speculating on WHAT melted and cascaded out that window a few minutes before the tower collapsed is an interesting diversion, but it is unlikely to actually be a significant cause related to the collapse.
IMHO
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
Are you referring to my speculations above? Or is the timing of your post co-incidental and referring to speculations by someone else?
And obviously, my prosaic speculations merely relate to the 'cascade' components/nature/cause and NOT to the cause of the top/local collapse.
In fact, it is the chaotic 'shifting' and movement immediately preceding top-local collapse that CAUSED all those accumulated 'pools'/materials to 'cascade' out the windows, hehehe. In NO WAY could those cascades be said to have been a 'cause' of that collapse, but rather an insignificant/irrelevant 'coincidental occurrance' during imminent-collapse/INTERNAL RE-ARRANGEMENTS under those tremendous 'terminal loads/stresses' which DID cause the collapse immediately after those cascades, heh?
To be clear: The cascades were insignificant and purely incidental to what had gone on and was about to happen soon after.
RC.
.
That's a lot of speculation.
For what I consider a totally insignificant event in the overall scheme of things that day.
The fires were hot, there is no question about that.
I believe they were in fact hotter than NIST estimates (which is why I suspect they had to take the higher end of their REASONABLE variables)
The reason is simple, aircraft crashes result in HOT fires all by themselves.
There is AMPLE evidence of this in the literature.
Aircraft contain a LOT of exotic materials, a lot of which can produce very high temps all on their own.
In 96 a ValueJet DC-9 crashed in the Everglades when unsecured Oxygen generating canisters in the hold caught fire and MELTED the high tensile strength steel control cables. Now that's hot. There were over 100 of these cannisters on each plane. There were magnesium alloy wheels, and carbon fiber laminates and hydraulic fluids and grease and who the heck knows what else in the hold of that plane. So this wasn't a TYPICAL office fire. It wasn't even a typical office.
The point is, the plane ALSO burnt, you see ANY pieces of plane in the debris pile?
In ALL those pictures we've looked at?
I've seen a few, very small pieces of the plane, but they weren't in the debris pile, they had gone through the towers and were lying in the street or on top of other buildings.
So speculating on WHAT melted and cascaded out that window a few minutes before the tower collapsed is an interesting diversion, but it is unlikely to actually be a significant cause related to the collapse.
IMHO
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
Are you referring to my speculations above? Or is the timing of your post co-incidental and referring to speculations by someone else?
And obviously, my prosaic speculations merely relate to the 'cascade' components/nature/cause and NOT to the cause of the top/local collapse.
In fact, it is the chaotic 'shifting' and movement immediately preceding top-local collapse that CAUSED all those accumulated 'pools'/materials to 'cascade' out the windows, hehehe. In NO WAY could those cascades be said to have been a 'cause' of that collapse, but rather an insignificant/irrelevant 'coincidental occurrance' during imminent-collapse/INTERNAL RE-ARRANGEMENTS under those tremendous 'terminal loads/stresses' which DID cause the collapse immediately after those cascades, heh?
To be clear: The cascades were insignificant and purely incidental to what had gone on and was about to happen soon after.
RC.
.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.