QUOTE (guestimator+Feb 28 2006, 11:27 PM)
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
You didn't seriously think I wrote that shiit did you????
Arthur
You didn't seriously think I wrote that shiit did you????
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 02:57 AM)
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
Really? Where is your calculation to back up your statement?
You claim:
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
Really? Where is your calculation to back up your statement?
You claim:
The EXPANSION of the cloud was NOT driven by heat because the CLOUD was NOT pyroclastic.
as though it is a fact , but really it is just your opinion. Methinks you are taking the analogy with volcanoes too seriously.
It has already been suggested to you that the source of the expansion was doubtless confined to the volume originally occupied by the building itself.
You seem to have a big problem with Hoffman's "target" temperature is 1020 K, or 720 Centigrade. Meanwhile, Ground Zero revealed temperatures of 1480 C six weeks after 911, as per the white hot metal shown in Professor Jones' paper.
Apparently, you'd have us believe that "Amazing Bellows" could go to work subterraneously to generate temperatures of 1480 C long after 911, but 720 Centigrade was not attained during the collapse, itself.
One needs "pope-ean" logic to think this way, but I confess not to having this amazing ability.
I note, once again, that I welcome a fluid hydrodynamical elaboration of Hoffman, even if it proves him essentially incorrect.
I also note, once again (anticipating the usual obfuscatory manipulations) that cooling is expected to occur at the "front", such cooling would start immediately after heating at the source, and so the objections about limited heat observations near Ground Zero do not rule out, by themselves, massive temperature spikes within Ground Zero.
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.
.
Hi RC,
Yeah, I thought you must have spent a decent amount of time thinking about what was in the towers and could have accounted for what was seen, and without having to resort to large stores of thermite prepositioned on the impact floors.
My point, which you obviously agree with, is summed up quite well in your last sentence.
Cheers mate.
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
Really? Where is your calculation to back up your statement?
You claim:
QUOTE (->
| 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
Really? Where is your calculation to back up your statement?
You claim:
The EXPANSION of the cloud was NOT driven by heat because the CLOUD was NOT pyroclastic.
as though it is a fact , but really it is just your opinion. Methinks you are taking the analogy with volcanoes too seriously.
It has already been suggested to you that the source of the expansion was doubtless confined to the volume originally occupied by the building itself.
You seem to have a big problem with Hoffman's "target" temperature is 1020 K, or 720 Centigrade. Meanwhile, Ground Zero revealed temperatures of 1480 C six weeks after 911, as per the white hot metal shown in Professor Jones' paper.
Apparently, you'd have us believe that "Amazing Bellows" could go to work subterraneously to generate temperatures of 1480 C long after 911, but 720 Centigrade was not attained during the collapse, itself.
One needs "pope-ean" logic to think this way, but I confess not to having this amazing ability.
I note, once again, that I welcome a fluid hydrodynamical elaboration of Hoffman, even if it proves him essentially incorrect.
I also note, once again (anticipating the usual obfuscatory manipulations) that cooling is expected to occur at the "front", such cooling would start immediately after heating at the source, and so the objections about limited heat observations near Ground Zero do not rule out, by themselves, massive temperature spikes within Ground Zero.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 28 2006, 11:29 PM)
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.
.
Hi RC,
Yeah, I thought you must have spent a decent amount of time thinking about what was in the towers and could have accounted for what was seen, and without having to resort to large stores of thermite prepositioned on the impact floors.
My point, which you obviously agree with, is summed up quite well in your last sentence.
Cheers mate.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 02:57 AM)
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 Prognostic 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
Is anyone keeping a record of all his errors?
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
Did I miss something?
You seem to have a big problem with Hoffman's "target" temperature is 1020 K, or 720 Centigrade. Meanwhile, Ground Zero revealed temperatures of 1480 C six weeks after 911, as per the white hot metal shown in Professor Jones' paper.
Apparently, you'd have us believe that "Amazing Bellows" could go to work subterraneously to generate temperatures of 1480 C long after 911, but 720 Centigrade was not attained during the collapse, itself.
While the FRONT might have cooled, many people were overtaken by the cloud and not a one turned into a Pompeii type ash figure. But people wouldn't have to be burnt to a crisp to be killed almost instantly by a flow of but 200C (one good breath and your a gonner). But you can see the people walking around in the cloud and you don't see a SINGLE picture (or read a story of) someone being felled by the "burning cloud". Face it, it simply can't be that hot. There are multitudes of other indications that the cloud was nowhere near the temps that Hoffman suggests, the PAPER that littered the streets with its low ignition point for one, the posters, the cars.
As for the pile, if Hoffman was right the pile itself would have had an AVERAGE temp of ~700 C. Had that been true you wouldn't have had those rescue workers crawling all over it looking for survivors later that same day.
Yes there were fires within the pile and yes there were HOT SPOTS and yes they burnt for weeks, but the photos are also clear, the whole pile was not anywhere near 100 C, let alone 700 C.
His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size.
Hoffman will NEVER get this BS published in any reputable journal.
Well, maybe on April 1st
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 Prognostic 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
Is anyone keeping a record of all his errors?
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
Did I miss something?
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 28 2006, 11:55 PM)
You seem to have a big problem with Hoffman's "target" temperature is 1020 K, or 720 Centigrade. Meanwhile, Ground Zero revealed temperatures of 1480 C six weeks after 911, as per the white hot metal shown in Professor Jones' paper.
Apparently, you'd have us believe that "Amazing Bellows" could go to work subterraneously to generate temperatures of 1480 C long after 911, but 720 Centigrade was not attained during the collapse, itself.
While the FRONT might have cooled, many people were overtaken by the cloud and not a one turned into a Pompeii type ash figure. But people wouldn't have to be burnt to a crisp to be killed almost instantly by a flow of but 200C (one good breath and your a gonner). But you can see the people walking around in the cloud and you don't see a SINGLE picture (or read a story of) someone being felled by the "burning cloud". Face it, it simply can't be that hot. There are multitudes of other indications that the cloud was nowhere near the temps that Hoffman suggests, the PAPER that littered the streets with its low ignition point for one, the posters, the cars.
As for the pile, if Hoffman was right the pile itself would have had an AVERAGE temp of ~700 C. Had that been true you wouldn't have had those rescue workers crawling all over it looking for survivors later that same day.
Yes there were fires within the pile and yes there were HOT SPOTS and yes they burnt for weeks, but the photos are also clear, the whole pile was not anywhere near 100 C, let alone 700 C.
His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size.
Hoffman will NEVER get this BS published in any reputable journal.
Well, maybe on April 1st
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 12:40 PM)
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 have noticed the pressure is really starting to take a toll on the official conspiracy supporters. First Schnobster, then RC and now Arthur. The problem with lies and propaganda is the effect can be shattered with one picture, video or true statement. Then that person is lost to further disinformation and propaganda forever (on that subject) . Wonder what the penalty is for failing at you job, Arthur? Do they tie your hands, , put a FOXX mask over your head and throw you in Schnobsters yard will he is chopping wood with an AXE (the reasonable person you would hang out with)?
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 have noticed the pressure is really starting to take a toll on the official conspiracy supporters. First Schnobster, then RC and now Arthur. The problem with lies and propaganda is the effect can be shattered with one picture, video or true statement. Then that person is lost to further disinformation and propaganda forever (on that subject) . Wonder what the penalty is for failing at you job, Arthur? Do they tie your hands, , put a FOXX mask over your head and throw you in Schnobsters yard will he is chopping wood with an AXE (the reasonable person you would hang out with)?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2006, 04:36 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2006, 12:40 PM)
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 have noticed the pressure is really starting to take a toll on the official conspiracy supporters. First Schnobster, then RC and now Arthur. The problem with lies and propaganda are the effect can be shattered with one picture, video or true statement. Then that person is lost to further disinformation and propaganda forever . Wonder what the penalty is for failing at you job, Arthur? Do they tie you up , put a FOXX mask over your head and throw you in Schnobsters yard will he is chopping wood with an AXE (the reasonable person you would hang out with)?
No, they're just frustrated with people like you who insist on insulting people you disagree with.
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 have noticed the pressure is really starting to take a toll on the official conspiracy supporters. First Schnobster, then RC and now Arthur. The problem with lies and propaganda are the effect can be shattered with one picture, video or true statement. Then that person is lost to further disinformation and propaganda forever . Wonder what the penalty is for failing at you job, Arthur? Do they tie you up , put a FOXX mask over your head and throw you in Schnobsters yard will he is chopping wood with an AXE (the reasonable person you would hang out with)?
No, they're just frustrated with people like you who insist on insulting people you disagree with.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 1 2006, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 02:57 AM)
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
Really? Where is your calculation to back up your statement?
You claim:
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
Really? Where is your calculation to back up your statement?
You claim:
The EXPANSION of the cloud was NOT driven by heat because the CLOUD was NOT pyroclastic.
as though it is a fact , but really it is just your opinion. Methinks you are taking the analogy with volcanoes too seriously.
It has already been suggested to you that the source of the expansion was doubtless confined to the volume originally occupied by the building itself.
You seem to have a big problem with Hoffman's "target" temperature is 1020 K, or 720 Centigrade. Meanwhile, Ground Zero revealed temperatures of 1480 C six weeks after 911, as per the white hot metal shown in Professor Jones' paper.
Apparently, you'd have us believe that "Amazing Bellows" could go to work subterraneously to generate temperatures of 1480 C long after 911, but 720 Centigrade was not attained during the collapse, itself.
One needs "pope-ean" logic to think this way, but I confess not to having this amazing ability.
I note, once again, that I welcome a fluid hydrodynamical elaboration of Hoffman, even if it proves him essentially incorrect.
I also note, once again (anticipating the usual obfuscatory manipulations) that cooling is expected to occur at the "front", such cooling would start immediately after heating at the source, and so the objections about limited heat observations near Ground Zero do not rule out, by themselves, massive temperature spikes within Ground Zero.
Hi metamars!
As Foxx and others have been at pains to point out, the TOTAL BUILDING (as opposed to HOT SPOTS and impact/fire level) MATERIALS temperature DURING COLLAPSE was not that high OVERALL.
It was only some time AFTER COLLAPSE, when the fires started/grew/progressed within the 'insulated' PILE, that SOME of those materials/areas got anywhere near the temps you mention.
So there would have been a HIATUS between the so-called "pyroclastic" cloud of dust being ejected (horizontally, by the final pressure of AIR/GASES ESCAPING 'ground impact' COMPRESSION), and the FIRES 'heating' up the pile to high temperatures in spots.
So I don't see what the PILE temps have to do with the IMMEDIATE expulsion of the dust clouds at 'ground impact' of the rubble...in other words, WHAT HEAT could the 'pile' give to the 'cloud' except the energy of 'collapse' transported in the form of high-pressure air/gas escaping the compression at ground impact? Can you elucidate? Thanks.
RC.
.
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.
Aluminum glows if it's hot enough. The only way it couldn't glow would be if it was 100% reflective where no radiation from inside the melt could reach the outside, which isn't the case. I melt aluminum in an induction heater setup and also a Czochralski melter. I use graphite crucibles since graphite is insoluble in aluminum. I can see the aluminum glow orange if I take it to 800C or higher.
The lack of color change during welding you mentioned earlier has to do with the low melting point of aluminum and its high reflectance. Aluminum is difficult to weld because it doesn't undergo a color change up to its melting point That's because its melting point is at the temperature where things just start to glow, as opposed to steel which glows yellow-white at its melting point. Arc welding on aluminum is difficult since there are reflections of the arc by the aluminum that mask any dull glow you would see near its melting point. The dull glow is almost impossible to see through welding glasses.
The material flowing from WTC2 was glowing and yet some of it appeared to have a silvery color. It's not inconsistent with what would be expected from aluminum at 800-1000C. If it had been at a temperature closer to 660C, it would have appeared all silver. At higher temperatures, it would have taken on a brighter yellow color which would tend to over-ride the silvery appearance that results from reflections of external light.
The orange color appears the most just as the globs are leaving the building. Many of the globs appear silvery as they dropped further. Some of the pieces that looked silver appear to bump into the facade, break up into smaller pieces, and turn orange briefly.
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
Really? Where is your calculation to back up your statement?
You claim:
QUOTE (->
| 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
Really? Where is your calculation to back up your statement?
You claim:
The EXPANSION of the cloud was NOT driven by heat because the CLOUD was NOT pyroclastic.
as though it is a fact , but really it is just your opinion. Methinks you are taking the analogy with volcanoes too seriously.
It has already been suggested to you that the source of the expansion was doubtless confined to the volume originally occupied by the building itself.
You seem to have a big problem with Hoffman's "target" temperature is 1020 K, or 720 Centigrade. Meanwhile, Ground Zero revealed temperatures of 1480 C six weeks after 911, as per the white hot metal shown in Professor Jones' paper.
Apparently, you'd have us believe that "Amazing Bellows" could go to work subterraneously to generate temperatures of 1480 C long after 911, but 720 Centigrade was not attained during the collapse, itself.
One needs "pope-ean" logic to think this way, but I confess not to having this amazing ability.
I note, once again, that I welcome a fluid hydrodynamical elaboration of Hoffman, even if it proves him essentially incorrect.
I also note, once again (anticipating the usual obfuscatory manipulations) that cooling is expected to occur at the "front", such cooling would start immediately after heating at the source, and so the objections about limited heat observations near Ground Zero do not rule out, by themselves, massive temperature spikes within Ground Zero.
Hi metamars!
As Foxx and others have been at pains to point out, the TOTAL BUILDING (as opposed to HOT SPOTS and impact/fire level) MATERIALS temperature DURING COLLAPSE was not that high OVERALL.
It was only some time AFTER COLLAPSE, when the fires started/grew/progressed within the 'insulated' PILE, that SOME of those materials/areas got anywhere near the temps you mention.
So there would have been a HIATUS between the so-called "pyroclastic" cloud of dust being ejected (horizontally, by the final pressure of AIR/GASES ESCAPING 'ground impact' COMPRESSION), and the FIRES 'heating' up the pile to high temperatures in spots.
So I don't see what the PILE temps have to do with the IMMEDIATE expulsion of the dust clouds at 'ground impact' of the rubble...in other words, WHAT HEAT could the 'pile' give to the 'cloud' except the energy of 'collapse' transported in the form of high-pressure air/gas escaping the compression at ground impact? Can you elucidate? Thanks.
RC.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 28 2006, 01:06 PM)
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.
Aluminum glows if it's hot enough. The only way it couldn't glow would be if it was 100% reflective where no radiation from inside the melt could reach the outside, which isn't the case. I melt aluminum in an induction heater setup and also a Czochralski melter. I use graphite crucibles since graphite is insoluble in aluminum. I can see the aluminum glow orange if I take it to 800C or higher.
The lack of color change during welding you mentioned earlier has to do with the low melting point of aluminum and its high reflectance. Aluminum is difficult to weld because it doesn't undergo a color change up to its melting point That's because its melting point is at the temperature where things just start to glow, as opposed to steel which glows yellow-white at its melting point. Arc welding on aluminum is difficult since there are reflections of the arc by the aluminum that mask any dull glow you would see near its melting point. The dull glow is almost impossible to see through welding glasses.
The material flowing from WTC2 was glowing and yet some of it appeared to have a silvery color. It's not inconsistent with what would be expected from aluminum at 800-1000C. If it had been at a temperature closer to 660C, it would have appeared all silver. At higher temperatures, it would have taken on a brighter yellow color which would tend to over-ride the silvery appearance that results from reflections of external light.
The orange color appears the most just as the globs are leaving the building. Many of the globs appear silvery as they dropped further. Some of the pieces that looked silver appear to bump into the facade, break up into smaller pieces, and turn orange briefly.
The starting point for melting glass is about 650 C.
Specialty glasses (as you postulate may have been added to the burning debris pile) can be significantly more heat resistant up to 1600 C.
There is a chart on this page...
http://www.mindrum.com/tech.html
As I view it, the problems with your theory that it may have been glass constituents pooling and melting are many.
First you need to attain temperatures in that range, and I haven't seen any evidence to support that.
Here is an overview of the area we are discussing which is the north east corner of WTC 2 (South Tower), The plane hit the south wall on an angle and the area at the corner is where parts of the plane exited and left a flaming debris pile in that northeast corner of the building.
Here is a corresponding graph from NIST which shows the fire that burned within the timeframe of the above photo being taken.
Let's zoom in and have a close look at this fire. The photo is an enlargement of a photo taken by Richard Drew/AP at 9:14:02 a.m. and corresponds within the above time frames. This is what some call a raging inferno. It was about 35 feet wide. If this was a small house (of about 1000 sq ft in area), the entire house would be engulfed in flame. As can be seen it extended to two stories in the corner... nevertheless the flames are not really extending more than about a storey in height at the right side. You can see a smaller fire over to the right. NIST calls the area in between 'the cold spot' because it never seemed to catch fire and the glass windows in that area remained intact (they didn't melt).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/fireST915b.jpg
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
Wow, now that's looking like a raging inferno isn't it?. In the infra-red photo this corner looks like the First Interstate Fire, or the Madrid Windsor fire. As this was in the time-frame when the jet-fuel was burning off, one would expect that this would be near the hottest time of the fire. So let's have a look at what the infra-red image tells us ...
Well, looks like the infra-red camera is showing a temperature for this fire at less than 250 degrees. Where is the yellow to white heat signature if the temperature is higher?
To me this 'raging inferno story' is getting shakier by the day... window glass is not melting... aluminum cladding within the flames is not melting... FLIR images do not support such a hypothesis... arsoNIST metalurgical analysis does not support the theory. Where are these high temperatures that are supposed to melt aluminum and glass?
Even ignoring all the above even NIST themselves claim that this molten metal was immediately preceeded by smoke and/or debris puffs. How does that fit with this molten glass theory?
It's all well and good to speculate that it might be 'this' or 'that'... but the forensic and empirical evidence must match with the speculation. It's not very scientific to just pick theories out of thin air with no evidence to back them up. I also remind you of NIST's quote...
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
Wow, now that's looking like a raging inferno isn't it?. In the infra-red photo this corner looks like the First Interstate Fire, or the Madrid Windsor fire. As this was in the time-frame when the jet-fuel was burning off, one would expect that this would be near the hottest time of the fire. So let's have a look at what the infra-red image tells us ...
Well, looks like the infra-red camera is showing a temperature for this fire at less than 250 degrees. Where is the yellow to white heat signature if the temperature is higher?
To me this 'raging inferno story' is getting shakier by the day... window glass is not melting... aluminum cladding within the flames is not melting... FLIR images do not support such a hypothesis... arsoNIST metalurgical analysis does not support the theory. Where are these high temperatures that are supposed to melt aluminum and glass?
Even ignoring all the above even NIST themselves claim that this molten metal was immediately preceeded by smoke and/or debris puffs. How does that fit with this molten glass theory?
It's all well and good to speculate that it might be 'this' or 'that'... but the forensic and empirical evidence must match with the speculation. It's not very scientific to just pick theories out of thin air with no evidence to back them up. I also remind you of NIST's quote...
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.
{page 39 / adobe 93}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3993.jpg
Someone care to calculate the volume of molten aluminum or molten glass which could pour out like that for...
7 MINUTES !!!
The fact that various chemical elements and compounds existed within the building provides possibilities, but just the fact that something is 'possible' doesn't make it scientifically plausible, especially in view of all the evidence against the melting glass theory above... & the mounting evidence that some form of incendiaries and/or explosives brought the buildings down.
I'm afraid, I myself just don't see melting glass or aluminum in the video, looks exactly like a thermite reaction (to me).
Of course, everyone can decide for themselves what is logical or not.
The 'world-is-round' theorists... some years ago were considered not only tin-hats -but outright heretics.
Reasonwhy... I'm still chuckling about putting a FOXX mask on adoucette and sending him over to help Schneibster chop wood
HAhaha! that was good.
Specialty glasses (as you postulate may have been added to the burning debris pile) can be significantly more heat resistant up to 1600 C.
There is a chart on this page...
http://www.mindrum.com/tech.html
As I view it, the problems with your theory that it may have been glass constituents pooling and melting are many.
First you need to attain temperatures in that range, and I haven't seen any evidence to support that.
Here is an overview of the area we are discussing which is the north east corner of WTC 2 (South Tower), The plane hit the south wall on an angle and the area at the corner is where parts of the plane exited and left a flaming debris pile in that northeast corner of the building.
Here is a corresponding graph from NIST which shows the fire that burned within the timeframe of the above photo being taken.
Let's zoom in and have a close look at this fire. The photo is an enlargement of a photo taken by Richard Drew/AP at 9:14:02 a.m. and corresponds within the above time frames. This is what some call a raging inferno. It was about 35 feet wide. If this was a small house (of about 1000 sq ft in area), the entire house would be engulfed in flame. As can be seen it extended to two stories in the corner... nevertheless the flames are not really extending more than about a storey in height at the right side. You can see a smaller fire over to the right. NIST calls the area in between 'the cold spot' because it never seemed to catch fire and the glass windows in that area remained intact (they didn't melt).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/fireST915b.jpg
QUOTE
Most of the cold spot continues to be smoke and fire free. In the lower right hand corner of the area a small fire is now visible on the 80th floor in windows 80-238 to 80-240, burning on a debris pile. The image in Figure 9-16 has sufficient resolution to determine the conditions of the windows. All of the windows on the 83rd floor immediately above the cold spot have glass in place while windows 79-241 to 79-249 on the 79th floor below the spot were also closed at this time.
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
Wow, now that's looking like a raging inferno isn't it?. In the infra-red photo this corner looks like the First Interstate Fire, or the Madrid Windsor fire. As this was in the time-frame when the jet-fuel was burning off, one would expect that this would be near the hottest time of the fire. So let's have a look at what the infra-red image tells us ...
Well, looks like the infra-red camera is showing a temperature for this fire at less than 250 degrees. Where is the yellow to white heat signature if the temperature is higher?
To me this 'raging inferno story' is getting shakier by the day... window glass is not melting... aluminum cladding within the flames is not melting... FLIR images do not support such a hypothesis... arsoNIST metalurgical analysis does not support the theory. Where are these high temperatures that are supposed to melt aluminum and glass?
Even ignoring all the above even NIST themselves claim that this molten metal was immediately preceeded by smoke and/or debris puffs. How does that fit with this molten glass theory?
It's all well and good to speculate that it might be 'this' or 'that'... but the forensic and empirical evidence must match with the speculation. It's not very scientific to just pick theories out of thin air with no evidence to back them up. I also remind you of NIST's quote...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Most of the cold spot continues to be smoke and fire free. In the lower right hand corner of the area a small fire is now visible on the 80th floor in windows 80-238 to 80-240, burning on a debris pile. The image in Figure 9-16 has sufficient resolution to determine the conditions of the windows. All of the windows on the 83rd floor immediately above the cold spot have glass in place while windows 79-241 to 79-249 on the 79th floor below the spot were also closed at this time. |
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
Wow, now that's looking like a raging inferno isn't it?. In the infra-red photo this corner looks like the First Interstate Fire, or the Madrid Windsor fire. As this was in the time-frame when the jet-fuel was burning off, one would expect that this would be near the hottest time of the fire. So let's have a look at what the infra-red image tells us ...
Well, looks like the infra-red camera is showing a temperature for this fire at less than 250 degrees. Where is the yellow to white heat signature if the temperature is higher?
To me this 'raging inferno story' is getting shakier by the day... window glass is not melting... aluminum cladding within the flames is not melting... FLIR images do not support such a hypothesis... arsoNIST metalurgical analysis does not support the theory. Where are these high temperatures that are supposed to melt aluminum and glass?
Even ignoring all the above even NIST themselves claim that this molten metal was immediately preceeded by smoke and/or debris puffs. How does that fit with this molten glass theory?
It's all well and good to speculate that it might be 'this' or 'that'... but the forensic and empirical evidence must match with the speculation. It's not very scientific to just pick theories out of thin air with no evidence to back them up. I also remind you of NIST's quote...
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.
{page 39 / adobe 93}
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc2b3993.jpg
Someone care to calculate the volume of molten aluminum or molten glass which could pour out like that for...
7 MINUTES !!!
The fact that various chemical elements and compounds existed within the building provides possibilities, but just the fact that something is 'possible' doesn't make it scientifically plausible, especially in view of all the evidence against the melting glass theory above... & the mounting evidence that some form of incendiaries and/or explosives brought the buildings down.
I'm afraid, I myself just don't see melting glass or aluminum in the video, looks exactly like a thermite reaction (to me).
Of course, everyone can decide for themselves what is logical or not.
The 'world-is-round' theorists... some years ago were considered not only tin-hats -but outright heretics.
Reasonwhy... I'm still chuckling about putting a FOXX mask on adoucette and sending him over to help Schneibster chop wood
HAhaha! that was good.QUOTE (guestimator+Mar 1 2006, 03:27 AM)
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" ).
fookin' eh, guestimater.
man, myth, hologram.
kurzweil's fifty yrs. late. with his spiritual machines.
it began when we started writing. downloading the collective conscious into forms more permanent than ourselves. thus creating a collective unconscious.
as print evolved, and photography came along, and the movies, and radio and television, our inner sanctum's tasks changed drastically.
before print, the entire 'public library' was an oral tradition.
later on, people could remember the phone numbers of all their friends.
the sense you use to think with biases your thoughts.
when man makes extensions of himself, he 'downloads' his senses, motivations and hopes and dreams into them. whether it's a telescope(extending sight), or a gun(extending touch), or a telephone(extending hearing), the technology itself changes the man's behaviour and WAY OF THINKING.
we are in the matrix, and the reason the movie RESONATED(yes, i said it) with the general populace, was because of the truth of the analogy.
it's not LITERALLY a pod with life support cable wired through a surgically implanted socket.
but, it might as well be.
the world we see is viewed through money-coloured glasses. big money DICTATES what you should look like, what you should think, what is good or bad, and what you can or can't do to/with your OWN BODY! (i'm thinking bans on vitamins, here)
when it's on tv, it's 'real', but when you see it with your own eyes, it's 'unreliable'.
the television has been watching us since it's inception. (adolf hitler was the content of the very first television broadcast)
television killed democracy with pollster-tics.
'absence of presence', i love that. we've all disappeared.
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
Wow, now that's looking like a raging inferno isn't it?. In the infra-red photo this corner looks like the First Interstate Fire, or the Madrid Windsor fire. As this was in the time-frame when the jet-fuel was burning off, one would expect that this would be near the hottest time of the fire. So let's have a look at what the infra-red image tells us ...
Well, looks like the infra-red camera is showing a temperature for this fire at less than 250 degrees. Where is the yellow to white heat signature if the temperature is higher?
To me this 'raging inferno story' is getting shakier by the day... window glass is not melting... aluminum cladding within the flames is not melting... FLIR images do not support such a hypothesis... arsoNIST metalurgical analysis does not support the theory. Where are these high temperatures that are supposed to melt aluminum and glass?
So, when we look at the visible pictures we can see actual FLAMES.
However when we look at the Infa-red photo we don't see ANY temps above about 70 C.
MY those ARE cold flames.
Arthur
PS where were these pictures from? You said NIST but didn't reference an actual report.
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" ).
fookin' eh, guestimater.
man, myth, hologram.
kurzweil's fifty yrs. late. with his spiritual machines.
it began when we started writing. downloading the collective conscious into forms more permanent than ourselves. thus creating a collective unconscious.
as print evolved, and photography came along, and the movies, and radio and television, our inner sanctum's tasks changed drastically.
before print, the entire 'public library' was an oral tradition.
later on, people could remember the phone numbers of all their friends.
the sense you use to think with biases your thoughts.
when man makes extensions of himself, he 'downloads' his senses, motivations and hopes and dreams into them. whether it's a telescope(extending sight), or a gun(extending touch), or a telephone(extending hearing), the technology itself changes the man's behaviour and WAY OF THINKING.
we are in the matrix, and the reason the movie RESONATED(yes, i said it) with the general populace, was because of the truth of the analogy.
it's not LITERALLY a pod with life support cable wired through a surgically implanted socket.
but, it might as well be.
the world we see is viewed through money-coloured glasses. big money DICTATES what you should look like, what you should think, what is good or bad, and what you can or can't do to/with your OWN BODY! (i'm thinking bans on vitamins, here)
when it's on tv, it's 'real', but when you see it with your own eyes, it's 'unreliable'.
the television has been watching us since it's inception. (adolf hitler was the content of the very first television broadcast)
television killed democracy with pollster-tics.
'absence of presence', i love that. we've all disappeared.
Aluminum aircraft alloys can melt at temperatures as low as 500C depending on the alloying content. As I mentioned earlier, aluminum is a very reactive metal. If molten aluminum contacts glass, it will getter the oxygen from it and literally melt the glass, even if the melting point of the glass is very high. Molten aluminum in contact with quartz will melt it. Quartz will normally soften in air at 1600 to 1700C.
I can show a pic of some quartz that I literally melted when some molten aluminum accidentally contacted it at about 700C. The aluminum reacts chemically with the oxygen and silcon in quartz and gives off heat. It will also adhere to the quartz and when the two cool, the aluminum contracts faster than the quartz and the quartz shatters. Anyone who has tried to melt reactive metals such as aluminum, beryllium, magnesium, calcium, etc, knows that glass doesn't work as a crucible. One has to used graphite or some other material that doesn't react with the metal.
There's nothing mysterious about some of the windows failing near the fire. Molten aluminum in contact with the glass would certainly penetrate it. There's a number of other things that could have caused windows to fail, including thermal shock; the initial hit by the aircraft, distortion of the walls as the building started to buckle (look at the east wall of WTC2 all buckled in near the fires); contaminants in the air combined with the heat of the fires (quartz and many other types of glasses are attacked and weakened by salts and other impurities at elevated temperature).
The reaction of aluminum with glass is a type of themite reaction in a broad definition of the term. The oxygen bearing material in this case is the glass. Heat is given off when the aluminum reacts chemically with the oxygen in the glass.
I can show a pic of some quartz that I literally melted when some molten aluminum accidentally contacted it at about 700C. The aluminum reacts chemically with the oxygen and silcon in quartz and gives off heat. It will also adhere to the quartz and when the two cool, the aluminum contracts faster than the quartz and the quartz shatters. Anyone who has tried to melt reactive metals such as aluminum, beryllium, magnesium, calcium, etc, knows that glass doesn't work as a crucible. One has to used graphite or some other material that doesn't react with the metal.
There's nothing mysterious about some of the windows failing near the fire. Molten aluminum in contact with the glass would certainly penetrate it. There's a number of other things that could have caused windows to fail, including thermal shock; the initial hit by the aircraft, distortion of the walls as the building started to buckle (look at the east wall of WTC2 all buckled in near the fires); contaminants in the air combined with the heat of the fires (quartz and many other types of glasses are attacked and weakened by salts and other impurities at elevated temperature).
The reaction of aluminum with glass is a type of themite reaction in a broad definition of the term. The oxygen bearing material in this case is the glass. Heat is given off when the aluminum reacts chemically with the oxygen in the glass.
There was about 70,000 kg of aluminum alloy available for melting in fires that were hot enough to melt it. That's certainly enough to pour out the window for 7 minutes. Think of how much intentionally placed thermite would have had to been hidden in an office at the northeast corner to accomplish the same thing.
Foxx,
Thanks for finally admitting your complete insanity. That's the first step to recovery.
Good luck.
Thanks for finally admitting your complete insanity. That's the first step to recovery.
Good luck.
Reason's why Hoffman/Jones paper is "Sloppy"...
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
20) "His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size."
An even 20 reasons why not to believe a word in this so called paper...
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
20) "His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size."
An even 20 reasons why not to believe a word in this so called paper...
571 reasons for independent inquiry-
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm
From the tales of -
CS and the Whopper Factory
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
AHEM. - So what they said needed explaning right? Wrong, they explained it right?
Looks like a dime a word at the Whopper Factory.
CS and the Whopper Factory
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
AHEM. - So what they said needed explaning right? Wrong, they explained it right?
Looks like a dime a word at the Whopper Factory.
QUOTE (newton+)
we are in the matrix, and the reason the movie RESONATED(yes, i said it) with the general populace, was because of the truth of the analogy.
newton, the Matrix movies resonated with YOUNG MALES which is why they made a video game out of it.
General Population my butt, the first movie was tedious and trite, but the second was friggin painful. I wouldn't put myself through the third one, sooner get a root canal.
Find me one ADULT who thought that watching Neo (the one) fighting Smith in slo mo ENDLESSLY was entertaining?
The literary references thrown in were pointless and absurd. I mean could Morpheus spout more inanity in 90 minutes if he tried?
you believe theri is Truth to the analogy?
Go find some kid's forum to debate that one.
Arthur
newton, the Matrix movies resonated with YOUNG MALES which is why they made a video game out of it.
General Population my butt, the first movie was tedious and trite, but the second was friggin painful. I wouldn't put myself through the third one, sooner get a root canal.
Find me one ADULT who thought that watching Neo (the one) fighting Smith in slo mo ENDLESSLY was entertaining?
The literary references thrown in were pointless and absurd. I mean could Morpheus spout more inanity in 90 minutes if he tried?
you believe theri is Truth to the analogy?
Go find some kid's forum to debate that one.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 1 2006, 04:52 AM)
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
Wow, now that's looking like a raging inferno isn't it?. In the infra-red photo this corner looks like the First Interstate Fire, or the Madrid Windsor fire. As this was in the time-frame when the jet-fuel was burning off, one would expect that this would be near the hottest time of the fire. So let's have a look at what the infra-red image tells us ...
Well, looks like the infra-red camera is showing a temperature for this fire at less than 250 degrees. Where is the yellow to white heat signature if the temperature is higher?
To me this 'raging inferno story' is getting shakier by the day... window glass is not melting... aluminum cladding within the flames is not melting... FLIR images do not support such a hypothesis... arsoNIST metalurgical analysis does not support the theory. Where are these high temperatures that are supposed to melt aluminum and glass?
So, when we look at the visible pictures we can see actual FLAMES.
However when we look at the Infa-red photo we don't see ANY temps above about 70 C.
MY those ARE cold flames.
Arthur
PS where were these pictures from? You said NIST but didn't reference an actual report.
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 02:37 PM)
571 reasons for independent inquiry-
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm
20 REAL reasons not to believe Brian
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
20) "His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size."
An even 20 reasons why not to believe a word in this so called paper...
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm
20 REAL reasons not to believe Brian
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
20) "His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size."
An even 20 reasons why not to believe a word in this so called paper...
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 02:44 PM)
From the tales of -
CS and the Whopper Factory
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
AHEM. - So what they said needed explaning right? Wrong, they explained it right?
Looks like a dime a word at the Whopper Factory.
err... NO, they didn't say the full truth about what the fireman said. The fireman said the sound of explosions were the building falling. Not bombs going off. None of them SAW bombs going off.
What has to be explained is the quotes out of context. Because if they weren't taken out of context it wouldn't need explaining.
CS and the Whopper Factory
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
AHEM. - So what they said needed explaning right? Wrong, they explained it right?
Looks like a dime a word at the Whopper Factory.
err... NO, they didn't say the full truth about what the fireman said. The fireman said the sound of explosions were the building falling. Not bombs going off. None of them SAW bombs going off.
What has to be explained is the quotes out of context. Because if they weren't taken out of context it wouldn't need explaining.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 04:06 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 02:44 PM)
From the tales of -
CS and the Whopper Factory
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
AHEM. - So what they said needed explaning right? Wrong, they explained it right?
Looks like a dime a word at the Whopper Factory.
err... NO, they didn't say the full truth about what the fireman said. The fireman said the sound of explosions were the building falling. Not bombs going off. None of them SAW bombs going off.
What has to be explained is the quotes out of context. Because if they weren't taken out of context it wouldn't need explaining.
As everyone knows the quotes you are lying about are the ones taken out of context, the firemen you refer to are quoted some time after they made the original estimation of what they experienced.
Put these quotes in context for us -
From David Griffin:
Colleagues,
Here's new video, which probably provides the best case yet of this type for the controlled demolition of the WTC. It's about 30 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
CS and the Whopper Factory
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
AHEM. - So what they said needed explaning right? Wrong, they explained it right?
Looks like a dime a word at the Whopper Factory.
err... NO, they didn't say the full truth about what the fireman said. The fireman said the sound of explosions were the building falling. Not bombs going off. None of them SAW bombs going off.
What has to be explained is the quotes out of context. Because if they weren't taken out of context it wouldn't need explaining.
As everyone knows the quotes you are lying about are the ones taken out of context, the firemen you refer to are quoted some time after they made the original estimation of what they experienced.
Put these quotes in context for us -
From David Griffin:
Colleagues,
Here's new video, which probably provides the best case yet of this type for the controlled demolition of the WTC. It's about 30 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 03:18 PM)
QUOTE (newton+)
we are in the matrix, and the reason the movie RESONATED(yes, i said it) with the general populace, was because of the truth of the analogy.
newton, the Matrix movies resonated with YOUNG MALES which is why they made a video game out of it.
General Population my butt, the first movie was tedious and trite, but the second was friggin painful. I wouldn't put myself through the third one, sooner get a root canal.
Find me one ADULT who thought that watching Neo (the one) fighting Smith in slo mo ENDLESSLY was entertaining?
The literary references thrown in were pointless and absurd. I mean could Morpheus spout more inanity in 90 minutes if he tried?
you believe theri is Truth to the analogy?
Go find some kid's forum to debate that one.
Arthur
i thought this was a kid's forum, the way the 'scientists'(official story) around here are always pointing at the 'psuedo-scientists'(unofficial; story. could be a phd., doesn't matter, it's a psuedo phd if your a CD believer) saying, 'fatty fat fat, MOOOOOOOOEEEEEE-RON, you're a fag, spaz, you're stupid, did not, yesitdid'.
well, arthur, i was BRIEFLY impressed. i realise, now, though, you're unable to see something that's not painted in bright colours and big shapes. simply finding a phrase and cutting and pasting it doesn't mean you've learned a thing about the REALITY of the android meme.
i never said the matrix was good, or important, btw(although i liked all three movies. keanu reeves is the greatest actor of all time, ....'WOAH!"). it is just a nice handy analogy in which a lot of people can see the parallels of our current information totalitarianism enviroment.
the 13th floor, alice in wonderland, three days of the condor, brazil, network, eyes wide shut or any number of flicks give much of this same important 'layered' perspective of concensus reality. mcluhan always talked of the different enviroments of cognisance and the 'hidden ground' that they exist on.
don't forget, 'skynet' from the terminator, either. the actual skynet does not have the android meme at the helm, though. the rudder is back in the hands of people, as we have fused with the meme. the meme is now replaying our myths as reality for us, as the real has gone virtual, and the virtual world reaches out and touches us. the different major myths are now rock'em sock'em robots trying to knock each other's blocks off.
if you can imagine any of the major prophecies or religions(including capitalism and science) being made up of all the people who believe them, and think of that group as a vast neural net, creating a reality output, PHYSICALLY pushing and shaping matter according to the netsums of the the input(lore). these vast bodies of competing myths have a great deal of inertia, and the space available for competing myths shrinks through the sattelite, and now internet, enviroments.
what may be considered scary, is that the christian myth demands armageddon, and the people who can actually 'bring it on' are the people with their fingers on the big red buttons, ie. far right fundamentalist NUTJOBS.
know much about the muslim brotherhood and their history and ties? because, we all should. i recommend DAVE EMORY as a good guide towards the hidden ground of the 'terror' enviroment.
newton, the Matrix movies resonated with YOUNG MALES which is why they made a video game out of it.
General Population my butt, the first movie was tedious and trite, but the second was friggin painful. I wouldn't put myself through the third one, sooner get a root canal.
Find me one ADULT who thought that watching Neo (the one) fighting Smith in slo mo ENDLESSLY was entertaining?
The literary references thrown in were pointless and absurd. I mean could Morpheus spout more inanity in 90 minutes if he tried?
you believe theri is Truth to the analogy?
Go find some kid's forum to debate that one.
Arthur
i thought this was a kid's forum, the way the 'scientists'(official story) around here are always pointing at the 'psuedo-scientists'(unofficial; story. could be a phd., doesn't matter, it's a psuedo phd if your a CD believer) saying, 'fatty fat fat, MOOOOOOOOEEEEEE-RON, you're a fag, spaz, you're stupid, did not, yesitdid'.
well, arthur, i was BRIEFLY impressed. i realise, now, though, you're unable to see something that's not painted in bright colours and big shapes. simply finding a phrase and cutting and pasting it doesn't mean you've learned a thing about the REALITY of the android meme.
i never said the matrix was good, or important, btw(although i liked all three movies. keanu reeves is the greatest actor of all time, ....'WOAH!"). it is just a nice handy analogy in which a lot of people can see the parallels of our current information totalitarianism enviroment.
the 13th floor, alice in wonderland, three days of the condor, brazil, network, eyes wide shut or any number of flicks give much of this same important 'layered' perspective of concensus reality. mcluhan always talked of the different enviroments of cognisance and the 'hidden ground' that they exist on.
don't forget, 'skynet' from the terminator, either. the actual skynet does not have the android meme at the helm, though. the rudder is back in the hands of people, as we have fused with the meme. the meme is now replaying our myths as reality for us, as the real has gone virtual, and the virtual world reaches out and touches us. the different major myths are now rock'em sock'em robots trying to knock each other's blocks off.
if you can imagine any of the major prophecies or religions(including capitalism and science) being made up of all the people who believe them, and think of that group as a vast neural net, creating a reality output, PHYSICALLY pushing and shaping matter according to the netsums of the the input(lore). these vast bodies of competing myths have a great deal of inertia, and the space available for competing myths shrinks through the sattelite, and now internet, enviroments.
what may be considered scary, is that the christian myth demands armageddon, and the people who can actually 'bring it on' are the people with their fingers on the big red buttons, ie. far right fundamentalist NUTJOBS.
know much about the muslim brotherhood and their history and ties? because, we all should. i recommend DAVE EMORY as a good guide towards the hidden ground of the 'terror' enviroment.
[QUOTE=adoucette,Mar 1 2006, 03:37 PM] [QUOTE=Foxx,Mar 1 2006, 04:52 AM]
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
[/QUOTE]
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me.
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
[/QUOTE]
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me.
We had a consensus. I know this because I waited for it to form before I made my statement. That statement even mentioned the action of steel undergoing forging and similar techniques in order to test the consensus, which was that the colours we witnessed in the molten metal were orange, red and yellow and that the debris dropping away was predominately orange but flashed brightly on collision.
No mention of silver.
No demur or contradiction or qualification is offered on my statement.
I mention that it couldn't be aluminium because it wasn't silver.
Suddenly the molten metal is now being described as silver, and the debris flashes are described as orange on collision.
Have you got a Russian linesman over there?
Gordon.
No mention of silver.
No demur or contradiction or qualification is offered on my statement.
I mention that it couldn't be aluminium because it wasn't silver.
Suddenly the molten metal is now being described as silver, and the debris flashes are described as orange on collision.
Have you got a Russian linesman over there?
Gordon.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 04:02 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 02:37 PM)
571 reasons for independent inquiry-
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm
20 REAL reasons not to believe Brian
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
20) "His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size."
An even 20 reasons why not to believe a word in this so called paper...
There are many more problems with Jones paper than 20. From the timing of fall of building 7 to the claims of ~2860oC (which conflicts with Jones own paper.) Later tonight I'll try to post more.
Griffin's paper is far worse.
Chapter one has been completely debunked here.
http://www.911myths.com/html/omissions____chapter_1.html
From the link brian gave, Griffin still thinks there were no Arab names on the manifest.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/u...11_manifest.gif
Maybe Griffin thinks Mohamed is Japanese
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm
20 REAL reasons not to believe Brian
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
20) "His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size."
An even 20 reasons why not to believe a word in this so called paper...
There are many more problems with Jones paper than 20. From the timing of fall of building 7 to the claims of ~2860oC (which conflicts with Jones own paper.) Later tonight I'll try to post more.
Griffin's paper is far worse.
Chapter one has been completely debunked here.
http://www.911myths.com/html/omissions____chapter_1.html
From the link brian gave, Griffin still thinks there were no Arab names on the manifest.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/u...11_manifest.gif
Maybe Griffin thinks Mohamed is Japanese
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 1 2006, 05:42 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 04:02 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 02:37 PM)
571 reasons for independent inquiry-
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm
20 REAL reasons not to believe Brian
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
20) "His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size."
An even 20 reasons why not to believe a word in this so called paper...
There are many more problems with Jones paper than 20. From the timing of fall of building 7 to the claims of ~2860oC (which conflicts with Jones own paper.) Later tonight I'll try to post more.
Griffin's paper is far worse.
Chapter one has been completely debunked here.
http://www.911myths.com/html/omissions____chapter_1.html
From the link brian gave, Griffin still thinks there were no Arab names on the manifest.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/u...11_manifest.gif
Maybe Griffin thinks Mohamed is Japanese
Here's Griffin's building 7's "small, localized fires"
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
Griffin is one of my favorite
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm
20 REAL reasons not to believe Brian
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
20) "His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size."
An even 20 reasons why not to believe a word in this so called paper...
There are many more problems with Jones paper than 20. From the timing of fall of building 7 to the claims of ~2860oC (which conflicts with Jones own paper.) Later tonight I'll try to post more.
Griffin's paper is far worse.
Chapter one has been completely debunked here.
http://www.911myths.com/html/omissions____chapter_1.html
From the link brian gave, Griffin still thinks there were no Arab names on the manifest.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/u...11_manifest.gif
Maybe Griffin thinks Mohamed is Japanese
Here's Griffin's building 7's "small, localized fires"
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
Griffin is one of my favorite
QUOTE (newton+Mar 1 2006, 12:50 PM)
[QUOTE=adoucette,Mar 1 2006, 03:37 PM] [QUOTE=Foxx,Mar 1 2006, 04:52 AM]
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
[/QUOTE]
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me.
Well Golly newt, a plane filled with fuel flies into the building at high speed, smashing into some of the core area where the ELEVATOR shafts are and you want explanations as to HOW it is possible for the fires to have reached the mechanical floors (at the bottom of many of the shafts) and a few floors above the impact floor.
Well Duh!
Arthur
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
[/QUOTE]
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me.
Well Golly newt, a plane filled with fuel flies into the building at high speed, smashing into some of the core area where the ELEVATOR shafts are and you want explanations as to HOW it is possible for the fires to have reached the mechanical floors (at the bottom of many of the shafts) and a few floors above the impact floor.
Well Duh!
Arthur
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 1 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 1 2006, 05:42 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 04:02 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 02:37 PM)
571 reasons for independent inquiry-
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm
20 REAL reasons not to believe Brian
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
20) "His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size."
An even 20 reasons why not to believe a word in this so called paper...
There are many more problems with Jones paper than 20. From the timing of fall of building 7 to the claims of ~2860oC (which conflicts with Jones own paper.) Later tonight I'll try to post more.
Griffin's paper is far worse.
Chapter one has been completely debunked here.
http://www.911myths.com/html/omissions____chapter_1.html
From the link brian gave, Griffin still thinks there were no Arab names on the manifest.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/u...11_manifest.gif
Maybe Griffin thinks Mohamed is Japanese
Here's Griffin's building 7's "small, localized fires"
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
Griffin is one of my favorite
And metamars doesn't want anyone to use the word IDIOT to discribe these men. After seeing this I would use the word Con-men. I don't care what education they have or what papers they've passed with other fields. They are two bit con-men.
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me.
Well Golly newt, a plane filled with fuel flies into the building at high speed, smashing into some of the core area where the ELEVATOR shafts are and you want explanations as to HOW it is possible for the fires to have reached the mechanical floors (at the bottom of many of the shafts) and a few floors above the impact floor.
Well Duh!
Arthur
This is a running theme for newt and co. Throw up a photo and say "AH! What's this!" without them using even a touch of critical thinking skills. Any who tries could come to your conclusion but not newt! NO, He has to be force fed every common sense explanation by straw.
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me.
Well Golly newt, a plane filled with fuel flies into the building at high speed, smashing into some of the core area where the ELEVATOR shafts are and you want explanations as to HOW it is possible for the fires to have reached the mechanical floors (at the bottom of many of the shafts) and a few floors above the impact floor.
Well Duh!
Arthur
okay, i'll give you the mechanical floor pinpoint hotspots.
what you have just observed, then, is that the mechanical floors provided a barrier to the fuel, something you tried very hard to obfuscate for some mysterious reason. of course, SOME fuel could have gone down the freight and express elevator shafts, but MOST was conifned by the mechanical floors.
as for the greatest heat being right on the corner, (ie. the area with the least surface area exposed to the heat of any fire going on inside the building), .....perhaps the corners of the tower had heat magnets in them?
Newt,
Foxx explained this in the SAME post you are quoting.
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
By Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm
20 REAL reasons not to believe Brian
1) No Pyroclastic flow of 1000 d C
2) Doctored photo
3) Heat produced by collapse and insulated by debris not seen as possibility for glowing metals.
4) Does not factor in large hole in building 7
6) Does not factor in penthouse collapse before collapse
7) Does not factor in possible thermite created with existing building/office/aircraft debris
8) Does not factor in construction of the WTC when showing photos of poured concrete buildings which fell over on their side
9) Does not factor in the aircraft impact/tube in a tube construction/blown off fireproofing when talking about "No Previous Steel-frame Skyscraper Collapses Due to Fires, None"
10) "Squib" not seen before collapse begins
11) Does not factor in pressure build up of air and debris to explain the "Squibs"
12) Does not calculate how many "Squibs" would be seen if the towers were in fact blown up.
13) Does not take into account the slow and progressive effects of weakening columns and sagging trusses which heated then cooled to explain how the top half of the core fell.
14) Did not take into account the sound an acre of concrete and steel floor make when they fall on one another to explain fireman's accounts
15) Did not read the fireman's accounts which said they realized the sound was the building coming down
16) Did not factor in the unique construction and forces acted upon that unique construction when considering the distance debris traveled
17) Lied about the context in which Manning made his comment.
18) Took Bazant and Zhou quote out of context. They asked "designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?" then answered the question.
19) The "whistle-blower" actually works in a whole different department and had nothing to do with the investigation.
20) "His use of an average particle size of 60 microns is bogus, because there are NO JOURNALS or studies that support the contention that the average size of the concrete particles from the towers were anywhere near this size."
An even 20 reasons why not to believe a word in this so called paper...
There are many more problems with Jones paper than 20. From the timing of fall of building 7 to the claims of ~2860oC (which conflicts with Jones own paper.) Later tonight I'll try to post more.
Griffin's paper is far worse.
Chapter one has been completely debunked here.
http://www.911myths.com/html/omissions____chapter_1.html
From the link brian gave, Griffin still thinks there were no Arab names on the manifest.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/u...11_manifest.gif
Maybe Griffin thinks Mohamed is Japanese
Here's Griffin's building 7's "small, localized fires"
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
Griffin is one of my favorite
And metamars doesn't want anyone to use the word IDIOT to discribe these men. After seeing this I would use the word Con-men. I don't care what education they have or what papers they've passed with other fields. They are two bit con-men.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 1 2006, 12:50 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 03:37 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 1 2006, 04:52 AM)
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me.
Well Golly newt, a plane filled with fuel flies into the building at high speed, smashing into some of the core area where the ELEVATOR shafts are and you want explanations as to HOW it is possible for the fires to have reached the mechanical floors (at the bottom of many of the shafts) and a few floors above the impact floor.
Well Duh!
Arthur
This is a running theme for newt and co. Throw up a photo and say "AH! What's this!" without them using even a touch of critical thinking skills. Any who tries could come to your conclusion but not newt! NO, He has to be force fed every common sense explanation by straw.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 05:50 PM)
[QUOTE=newton,Mar 1 2006, 12:50 PM] [QUOTE=adoucette,Mar 1 2006, 03:37 PM] [QUOTE=Foxx,Mar 1 2006, 04:52 AM]
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
[/QUOTE]
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me. [/QUOTE]
Well Golly newt, a plane filled with fuel flies into the building at high speed, smashing into some of the core area where the ELEVATOR shafts are and you want explanations as to HOW it is possible for the fires to have reached the mechanical floors (at the bottom of many of the shafts) and a few floors above the impact floor.
Well Duh!
Arthur
okay, i'll give you the mechanical floor pinpoint hotspots.
what you have just observed, then, is that the mechanical floors provided a barrier to the fuel, something you tried very hard to obfuscate for some mysterious reason. of course, SOME fuel could have gone down the freight and express elevator shafts, but MOST was conifned by the mechanical floors.
as for the greatest heat being right on the corner, (ie. the area with the least surface area exposed to the heat of any fire going on inside the building), .....perhaps the corners of the tower had heat magnets in them?
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
[/QUOTE]
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me. [/QUOTE]
Well Golly newt, a plane filled with fuel flies into the building at high speed, smashing into some of the core area where the ELEVATOR shafts are and you want explanations as to HOW it is possible for the fires to have reached the mechanical floors (at the bottom of many of the shafts) and a few floors above the impact floor.
Well Duh!
Arthur
okay, i'll give you the mechanical floor pinpoint hotspots.
what you have just observed, then, is that the mechanical floors provided a barrier to the fuel, something you tried very hard to obfuscate for some mysterious reason. of course, SOME fuel could have gone down the freight and express elevator shafts, but MOST was conifned by the mechanical floors.
as for the greatest heat being right on the corner, (ie. the area with the least surface area exposed to the heat of any fire going on inside the building), .....perhaps the corners of the tower had heat magnets in them?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 1 2006, 12:38 PM)
well, arthur, i was BRIEFLY impressed. i realise, now, though, you're unable to see something that's not painted in bright colours and big shapes. simply finding a phrase and cutting and pasting it doesn't mean you've learned a thing about the REALITY of the android meme.
i never said the matrix was good, or important, btw(although i liked all three movies. keanu reeves is the greatest actor of all time, ....'WOAH!"). it is just a nice handy analogy in which a lot of people can see the parallels of our current information totalitarianism enviroment.
the 13th floor, alice in wonderland, three days of the condor, brazil, network, eyes wide shut or any number of flicks give much of this same important 'layered' perspective of concensus reality.
Right,
From someone who references The Matrix, Terminator, Eyes Wide Shut and still thinks the medium is the message.
I've said it before, though I know you resist.
Grow up.
Arthur
i never said the matrix was good, or important, btw(although i liked all three movies. keanu reeves is the greatest actor of all time, ....'WOAH!"). it is just a nice handy analogy in which a lot of people can see the parallels of our current information totalitarianism enviroment.
the 13th floor, alice in wonderland, three days of the condor, brazil, network, eyes wide shut or any number of flicks give much of this same important 'layered' perspective of concensus reality.
Right,
From someone who references The Matrix, Terminator, Eyes Wide Shut and still thinks the medium is the message.
I've said it before, though I know you resist.
Grow up.
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 06:07 PM)
And metamars doesn't want anyone to use the word IDIOT to discribe these men. After seeing this I would use the word Con-men. I don't care what education they have or what papers they've passed with other fields. They are two bit con-men.
I agree. I find it hard to believe these guys (Jones and Griffin) are THAT bad at research.
I think its much more likely to be on purpose. Con-men doing it for money.
It should make people angry that they take advantage of people like brian who probably doesn't have the time to research all these wild claims.
I agree. I find it hard to believe these guys (Jones and Griffin) are THAT bad at research.
I think its much more likely to be on purpose. Con-men doing it for money.
It should make people angry that they take advantage of people like brian who probably doesn't have the time to research all these wild claims.
from your boston globe terror analysis link...
anthrax
there was a day it was big news. not even the photo archives seem to remember it, now.
anthrax
there was a day it was big news. not even the photo archives seem to remember it, now.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 1 2006, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 1 2006, 12:50 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 1 2006, 04:52 AM)
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me.
Well Golly newt, a plane filled with fuel flies into the building at high speed, smashing into some of the core area where the ELEVATOR shafts are and you want explanations as to HOW it is possible for the fires to have reached the mechanical floors (at the bottom of many of the shafts) and a few floors above the impact floor.
Well Duh!
Arthur
okay, i'll give you the mechanical floor pinpoint hotspots.
what you have just observed, then, is that the mechanical floors provided a barrier to the fuel, something you tried very hard to obfuscate for some mysterious reason. of course, SOME fuel could have gone down the freight and express elevator shafts, but MOST was conifned by the mechanical floors.
as for the greatest heat being right on the corner, (ie. the area with the least surface area exposed to the heat of any fire going on inside the building), .....perhaps the corners of the tower had heat magnets in them?
Newt,
Foxx explained this in the SAME post you are quoting.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
Here is an overview of the area we are discussing which is the north east corner of WTC 2 (South Tower), The plane hit the south wall on an angle and the area at the corner is where parts of the plane exited and left a flaming debris pile in that northeast corner of the building.
Emphasis mine.
Arthur
Emphasis mine.
Arthur
What infrared photograms will tell you is the TEMPERATURE of what your photographing is. It does not tell you where the fire is. The smoke has a very high temperature nearly as high as the fire itself. The floors above may or may not contain fire. What is present on the photograph on the floors above is the hot smoke.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 06:25 PM)
From someone who references The Matrix, Terminator, Eyes Wide Shut and still thinks the medium is the message.
I've said it before, though I know you resist.
Grow up.
Arthur
i seriously doubt you even understand what 'the medium is the message' means. don't feel bad, though, even some heads of university media programs based on mcluhan are completely wrong about it.
mcluhan said the next generation would burn down the schoolhouses.
I've said it before, though I know you resist.
Grow up.
Arthur
i seriously doubt you even understand what 'the medium is the message' means. don't feel bad, though, even some heads of university media programs based on mcluhan are completely wrong about it.
mcluhan said the next generation would burn down the schoolhouses.
QUOTE
war and peace in the global village (bantam and mcgraw-hill, 1968) is devoted to war as education and education as war. all technological changes result in war.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 1 2006, 06:30 PM)
from your boston globe terror analysis link...
anthrax
there was a day it was big news. not even the photo archives seem to remember it, now.
I fully agree that the anthrax attacks should be looked into further.
An honestly as a side note, I wouldn't mind having a beer with many of people at this forum.
anthrax
there was a day it was big news. not even the photo archives seem to remember it, now.
I fully agree that the anthrax attacks should be looked into further.
An honestly as a side note, I wouldn't mind having a beer with many of people at this forum.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 1 2006, 02:30 PM)
I agree. I find it hard to believe these guys (Jones and Griffin) are THAT bad at research.
I think its much more likely to be on purpose. Con-men doing it for money.
It should make people angry that they take advantage of people like brian who probably doesn't have the time to research all these wild claims.
Of course they are doing it for the money.
Or they are on the same side as the terrorists, not that they are necessarily terrorists themselves, but like Foxx, they believe the US is fundamentally BAD (Imperialistic) and want it under the control of the UN or other form of World Government like Griffin pushes.
At heart they are fundamentally Malthusian Pessimists (Newton being a prime example) believing in BS like MIB, NWO, PNAC, Global Warming and that the Matrix is real.
Arthur
I think its much more likely to be on purpose. Con-men doing it for money.
It should make people angry that they take advantage of people like brian who probably doesn't have the time to research all these wild claims.
Of course they are doing it for the money.
Or they are on the same side as the terrorists, not that they are necessarily terrorists themselves, but like Foxx, they believe the US is fundamentally BAD (Imperialistic) and want it under the control of the UN or other form of World Government like Griffin pushes.
At heart they are fundamentally Malthusian Pessimists (Newton being a prime example) believing in BS like MIB, NWO, PNAC, Global Warming and that the Matrix is real.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 06:43 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 1 2006, 02:30 PM)
I agree. I find it hard to believe these guys (Jones and Griffin) are THAT bad at research.
I think its much more likely to be on purpose. Con-men doing it for money.
It should make people angry that they take advantage of people like brian who probably doesn't have the time to research all these wild claims.
Of course they are doing it for the money.
Or they are on the same side as the terrorists, not that they are necessarily terrorists themselves, but like Foxx, they believe the US is fundamentally BAD (Imperialistic) and want it under the control of the UN or other form of World Government like Griffin pushes.
At heart they are fundamentally Malthusian Pessimists (Newton being a prime example) believing in BS like MIB, NWO, PNAC, Global Warming and that the Matrix is real.
Arthur
you don't believe in PNAC? HAHAHA!
as far as pessimism goes, i say the glass is half empty AND half full. i'm a realist, as opposed to the predominant species on earth, the reelist.
I think its much more likely to be on purpose. Con-men doing it for money.
It should make people angry that they take advantage of people like brian who probably doesn't have the time to research all these wild claims.
Of course they are doing it for the money.
Or they are on the same side as the terrorists, not that they are necessarily terrorists themselves, but like Foxx, they believe the US is fundamentally BAD (Imperialistic) and want it under the control of the UN or other form of World Government like Griffin pushes.
At heart they are fundamentally Malthusian Pessimists (Newton being a prime example) believing in BS like MIB, NWO, PNAC, Global Warming and that the Matrix is real.
Arthur
you don't believe in PNAC? HAHAHA!
as far as pessimism goes, i say the glass is half empty AND half full. i'm a realist, as opposed to the predominant species on earth, the reelist.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 1 2006, 02:41 PM)
i seriously doubt you even understand what 'the medium is the message' means. don't feel bad, though, even some heads of university media programs based on mcluhan are completely wrong about it.
I don't feel bad.
What a condescending A$$hole you can be, you ARE a little girl, even if you happen to have a tiny set of testes.
I don't feel bad.
What a condescending A$$hole you can be, you ARE a little girl, even if you happen to have a tiny set of testes.
QUOTE (newton+)
whether it's a telescope(extending sight), or a gun(extending touch), or a telephone(extending hearing), the technology itself changes the man's behaviour and WAY OF THINKING.
Ah, and this is not a little right out of MM?
As to PNAC, of course they EXIST, do they have any real POWER, no.
Arthur
Ah, and this is not a little right out of MM?
As to PNAC, of course they EXIST, do they have any real POWER, no.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 06:56 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 1 2006, 02:41 PM)
i seriously doubt you even understand what 'the medium is the message' means. don't feel bad, though, even some heads of university media programs based on mcluhan are completely wrong about it.
I don't feel bad.
What a condescending A$$hole you can be, you ARE a little girl, even if you happen to have a tiny set of testes.
Arthur
kettle, meet pot, pot meet kettle.
and i told you, i'm a 105 yr. old lady. i don't have testes.
Of course they are doing it for the money.
Or they are on the same side as the terrorists, not that they are necessarily terrorists themselves, but like Foxx, they believe the US is fundamentally BAD (Imperialistic) and want it under the control of the UN or other form of World Government like Griffin pushes.
Arthur
Arthur, maybe they are not really terrorist and are just trying to get into Yale:
Taliban Spokesman
Now Yale Student
Jihadi Turns Bulldog
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
"In some ways," Mr. Rahmatullah told the New York Times. "I'm the luckiest person in the world. I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead I ended up at Yale." One of the courses he has taken is called Terrorism-Past, Present and Future.
I don't feel bad.
What a condescending A$$hole you can be, you ARE a little girl, even if you happen to have a tiny set of testes.
Arthur
kettle, meet pot, pot meet kettle.
and i told you, i'm a 105 yr. old lady. i don't have testes.
adoucette, I'd love to have a beer with you too so I could tell you about the PNAC.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
Note the signatories...
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
Note the signatories...
QUOTE (newton+Mar 1 2006, 06:24 PM)
[QUOTE=adoucette,Mar 1 2006, 05:50 PM] [QUOTE=newton,Mar 1 2006, 12:50 PM] [QUOTE=adoucette,Mar 1 2006, 03:37 PM] [QUOTE=Foxx,Mar 1 2006, 04:52 AM]
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
[/QUOTE]
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me. [/QUOTE]
Well Golly newt, a plane filled with fuel flies into the building at high speed, smashing into some of the core area where the ELEVATOR shafts are and you want explanations as to HOW it is possible for the fires to have reached the mechanical floors (at the bottom of many of the shafts) and a few floors above the impact floor.
Well Duh!
Arthur [/QUOTE]
okay, i'll give you the mechanical floor pinpoint hotspots.
what you have just observed, then, is that the mechanical floors provided a barrier to the fuel, something you tried very hard to obfuscate for some mysterious reason. of course, SOME fuel could have gone down the freight and express elevator shafts, but MOST was conifned by the mechanical floors.
as for the greatest heat being right on the corner, (ie. the area with the least surface area exposed to the heat of any fire going on inside the building), .....perhaps the corners of the tower had heat magnets in them?
1) How the hell do you know this?
2) The mechanical room is the bottom of the elevator shaft for many of the elevators anyway.
3) The mechanical rooms housed elevator equipment for the floors below as well. It was not hermetically sealed. Elevator cables had to go from below to that level. With gaping holes for cables, how could it ALL stay on the mechanical floors?
Aren't you just pulling crap out of your arus again?
Now also within this time frame NIST provides an infra-red photo of the area in question... see photo below...
[/QUOTE]
in the infrared photo there are two hot spots on the mechanical floors, and one long stripe of heat along the corner of the building opposite the fire and up a few floors higher than the fire.
please obfuscate this fact into oblivion for me. [/QUOTE]
Well Golly newt, a plane filled with fuel flies into the building at high speed, smashing into some of the core area where the ELEVATOR shafts are and you want explanations as to HOW it is possible for the fires to have reached the mechanical floors (at the bottom of many of the shafts) and a few floors above the impact floor.
Well Duh!
Arthur [/QUOTE]
okay, i'll give you the mechanical floor pinpoint hotspots.
what you have just observed, then, is that the mechanical floors provided a barrier to the fuel, something you tried very hard to obfuscate for some mysterious reason. of course, SOME fuel could have gone down the freight and express elevator shafts, but MOST was conifned by the mechanical floors.
as for the greatest heat being right on the corner, (ie. the area with the least surface area exposed to the heat of any fire going on inside the building), .....perhaps the corners of the tower had heat magnets in them?
QUOTE
SOME fuel could have gone down the freight and express elevator shafts, but MOST was conifned by the mechanical floors.
1) How the hell do you know this?
2) The mechanical room is the bottom of the elevator shaft for many of the elevators anyway.
3) The mechanical rooms housed elevator equipment for the floors below as well. It was not hermetically sealed. Elevator cables had to go from below to that level. With gaping holes for cables, how could it ALL stay on the mechanical floors?
Aren't you just pulling crap out of your arus again?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 1 2006, 06:30 PM)
from your boston globe terror analysis link...
anthrax
there was a day it was big news. not even the photo archives seem to remember it, now.
Even if Bush himself licked the envelopes before malling them it doesn't mean the buildings didn't fall from fire.
anthrax
there was a day it was big news. not even the photo archives seem to remember it, now.
Even if Bush himself licked the envelopes before malling them it doesn't mean the buildings didn't fall from fire.
Odd is it not?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 10:43 AM)
Of course they are doing it for the money.
Or they are on the same side as the terrorists, not that they are necessarily terrorists themselves, but like Foxx, they believe the US is fundamentally BAD (Imperialistic) and want it under the control of the UN or other form of World Government like Griffin pushes.
Arthur
Arthur, maybe they are not really terrorist and are just trying to get into Yale:
Taliban Spokesman
Now Yale Student
Jihadi Turns Bulldog
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
"In some ways," Mr. Rahmatullah told the New York Times. "I'm the luckiest person in the world. I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead I ended up at Yale." One of the courses he has taken is called Terrorism-Past, Present and Future.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 06:56 PM)
As to PNAC, of course they EXIST, do they have any real POWER, no.
Arthur
Members of PNAC
Vice President D. Cheney
Secretary to the Vice President I. Lewis Libby Indited*
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Elliott Abrams Involved in Iran/Contra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
Ex Bush Sr VP Dan Quayle
Arthur
Members of PNAC
Vice President D. Cheney
Secretary to the Vice President I. Lewis Libby Indited*
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Elliott Abrams Involved in Iran/Contra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
Ex Bush Sr VP Dan Quayle
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 07:41 PM)
Odd is it not?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
You know Brian, I can't be as nice as ScottS with you. This was posted not one page back yet you say "if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it,"
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
Also I have posted a number of times the media told everyone the building was coming down long before it did.
They are interviewing this woman with Building 7 in the background because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says “This is it” as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened.” Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?
http://msnbc.com/modules/interactive.asp?f...c_010911&type=v
STOP LYING!
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
You know Brian, I can't be as nice as ScottS with you. This was posted not one page back yet you say "if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it,"
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
Also I have posted a number of times the media told everyone the building was coming down long before it did.
They are interviewing this woman with Building 7 in the background because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says “This is it” as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened.” Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?
http://msnbc.com/modules/interactive.asp?f...c_010911&type=v
STOP LYING!
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 07:41 PM)
Odd is it not?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 1 2006, 08:01 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 07:41 PM)
Odd is it not?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
In CBS video you can see the penthouse fall well before the rest of the building.
I NEVER saw a CD which takes down PART of a building first then the rest a few seconds later. NEVER.
PS: I'm using CT logic. The old "If I never saw it before, it can't happen" logic.
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
In CBS video you can see the penthouse fall well before the rest of the building.
I NEVER saw a CD which takes down PART of a building first then the rest a few seconds later. NEVER.
PS: I'm using CT logic. The old "If I never saw it before, it can't happen" logic.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 1 2006, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 07:41 PM)
Odd is it not?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
Can you share with us your theory on the collapse of WTC7?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
Can you share with us your theory on the collapse of WTC7?
It wouldn't be a "theory" in the scientific sense. It would be a preliminary hypothesis which may change as new information comes out. Namely the NIST report.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 12:43 PM)
It wouldn't be a "theory" in the scientific sense. It would be a preliminary hypothesis which may change as new information comes out. Namely the NIST report.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2006, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 12:43 PM)
It wouldn't be a "theory" in the scientific sense. It would be a preliminary hypothesis which may change as new information comes out. Namely the NIST report.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
Experts Call for Release of 9/11 Evidence
Wed Mar 1, 7:00 AM ET
---the scholars call for the release of a complete inventory of any steel, other metal, or other materials from the World Trade Center, including, but not limited to the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items, catalog of photographs and videotapes of any items from the scene, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of those items.
Judy Wood, a professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University and a full member of the society of scholars, has emphasized the importance of this material for those studying the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. "This material has the potential to resolve crucial questions about the forces that were responsible for the buildings' fall, including the possible use of incendiaries and explosives", she observed. "It is of great importance that we have access to it."
They also call for release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST; tape recordings of interviews by air traffic controllers, at least some of which were deliberately destroyed while in the possession of representatives of the government; a complete accounting of "terror drills" that were being conducted that morning, which may have been used to mask the attack; the cockpit voice recorders and other "black boxes", three of four of which are reported to have survived the Twin Towers' collapse; and other related evidence. --
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060301/bs_...b/prweb352979_1
Wed Mar 1, 7:00 AM ET
---the scholars call for the release of a complete inventory of any steel, other metal, or other materials from the World Trade Center, including, but not limited to the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items, catalog of photographs and videotapes of any items from the scene, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of those items.
Judy Wood, a professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University and a full member of the society of scholars, has emphasized the importance of this material for those studying the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. "This material has the potential to resolve crucial questions about the forces that were responsible for the buildings' fall, including the possible use of incendiaries and explosives", she observed. "It is of great importance that we have access to it."
They also call for release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST; tape recordings of interviews by air traffic controllers, at least some of which were deliberately destroyed while in the possession of representatives of the government; a complete accounting of "terror drills" that were being conducted that morning, which may have been used to mask the attack; the cockpit voice recorders and other "black boxes", three of four of which are reported to have survived the Twin Towers' collapse; and other related evidence. --
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060301/bs_...b/prweb352979_1
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 09:03 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2006, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 12:43 PM)
It wouldn't be a "theory" in the scientific sense. It would be a preliminary hypothesis which may change as new information comes out. Namely the NIST report.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
And the evidence for the weird and wonderful official conspiracy theory is ...???
Point away.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
And the evidence for the weird and wonderful official conspiracy theory is ...???
Point away.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 01:03 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2006, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 12:43 PM)
It wouldn't be a "theory" in the scientific sense. It would be a preliminary hypothesis which may change as new information comes out. Namely the NIST report.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
That proves you are the only conspiracy theorists. The government story has been the same since day one (even with a considerable amount of new evidence) without a trial for those who supposedly are responsible.
I have never said it was the goverment. Those responsible are by any definition terrorist. The goverment and USA are far worse off becouse of 9/11. Some people in the government and others have benefited and that is were I would start a real investigation.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
That proves you are the only conspiracy theorists. The government story has been the same since day one (even with a considerable amount of new evidence) without a trial for those who supposedly are responsible.
I have never said it was the goverment. Those responsible are by any definition terrorist. The goverment and USA are far worse off becouse of 9/11. Some people in the government and others have benefited and that is were I would start a real investigation.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2006, 08:38 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 1 2006, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 07:41 PM)
Odd is it not?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
Can you share with us your theory on the collapse of WTC7?
I disagree with conspiracy theorists beacause the information they use, tends to be CLEARLY dishonest. The information is of SUCH poor quality (Griffin/Jones) whited out photo, misquotations, misrepresentations,... I mean are these guys supposed putting out realistic information.
There’s a reason why conspiracy theorists have few primary sources, its beacuse they tend to be afraid to talk to them. For example I simply e-mailed Barnett to confirm Jones error with the steel. Jones either has little understanding of research, or he’s painfully dishonest. Because of his misquotes, and clear misrepresentations (like Kevin Ryan) I tend to lean toward the latter.
As for an idea on building 7. Yes I have lots of ideas. I can guess based on the current information. But none of my guestimates have anything to do with thermite.
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
What say the OCTs - if the firefighters did not fight it and it eventually raged enough to bring the building down why is there no evidence on the film? Why does not one commentator mention it, instead saying for the 3rd time today here we have another collapse that looks like controlled demolition??
Invisible inferno? - one for RC methinks.
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
I linked to this video footage in my last link. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
But here are some other which clearly show large smoke coming out of building 7 before it fell.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The first 2 are really nice
Can you share with us your theory on the collapse of WTC7?
I disagree with conspiracy theorists beacause the information they use, tends to be CLEARLY dishonest. The information is of SUCH poor quality (Griffin/Jones) whited out photo, misquotations, misrepresentations,... I mean are these guys supposed putting out realistic information.
There’s a reason why conspiracy theorists have few primary sources, its beacuse they tend to be afraid to talk to them. For example I simply e-mailed Barnett to confirm Jones error with the steel. Jones either has little understanding of research, or he’s painfully dishonest. Because of his misquotes, and clear misrepresentations (like Kevin Ryan) I tend to lean toward the latter.
As for an idea on building 7. Yes I have lots of ideas. I can guess based on the current information. But none of my guestimates have anything to do with thermite.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 03:02 PM)
adoucette, I'd love to have a beer with you too so I could tell you about the PNAC.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
Note the signatories...
The PNAC is a think tank and lobbying group, as such it has no real power.
Now the people in it of course are at some high positions, and of course are influential while they are in office, but real power is harder to define.
There are LOTS of influential people in Washington (and elsewhere) but influence and power in a democracy is not quite the same.
Arthur
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
Note the signatories...
The PNAC is a think tank and lobbying group, as such it has no real power.
Now the people in it of course are at some high positions, and of course are influential while they are in office, but real power is harder to define.
There are LOTS of influential people in Washington (and elsewhere) but influence and power in a democracy is not quite the same.
Arthur
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 09:19 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 09:03 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2006, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 12:43 PM)
It wouldn't be a "theory" in the scientific sense. It would be a preliminary hypothesis which may change as new information comes out. Namely the NIST report.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
And the evidence for the weird and wonderful official conspiracy theory is ...???
Point away.
More than for your half baked lunacy.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
And the evidence for the weird and wonderful official conspiracy theory is ...???
Point away.
More than for your half baked lunacy.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 10:00 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 03:02 PM)
adoucette, I'd love to have a beer with you too so I could tell you about the PNAC.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
Note the signatories...
The PNAC is a think tank and lobbying group, as such it has no real power.
Now the people in it of course are at some high positions, and of course are influential while they are in office, but real power is harder to define.
There are LOTS of influential people in Washington (and elsewhere) but influence and power in a democracy is not quite the same.
Arthur
The people who wanted war with Iraq in 1996 are the same people who just happen to be in power when we go to war with Iraq. The people who were wrong about evidence for WMD and the cost of the war are the same people from the PNAC...
You are right, the PNAC doesn't have the power to do anything as the PNAC but it's members can conspire to achieve PNAC goals can it not? In effect the PNAC can get it's agenda through even though it doesn't have a PNAC stamp.
Group A wants a war with Iraq
Members of Group A get in power
Poor evidence is largely compiled by Group A members.
The evidence Group A compiles is called "Shiit" by the Secritary of State before the UN speech. He then spends hours on a new presentation to UN.
Group A members in power have a war based on poor evidence
One of Group A members in power is indited for not being truthful about the outing of the spouse of someone who exposed a part of the evidence as unreliable.
This is not a 9/11 style conspiracy with no whistle-blowers.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm
Just think about it ADUO.
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.
....yeah, basics. But this heat energy produced would be very diffuse. How do you suppose the heat would produce such high temperatures - particularly those high enough to ignite office materials and melt structural steel?? High temperatures are not usually observed as a result of large falling objects colliding into each other. Additionally much of this heat would be dissipated into the air as the building was falling, and not trapped.
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.
Yes but the difference is that bombs and lasers beams produce high temperatures. While large objects (like those in a building) falling and colliding together might produce the same quantity of heat, they typically dont produce the concentrated heat energy needed to get high temperatures in a substance.
This program has one small but critical error..
Yes but the difference is that bombs and lasers beams produce high temperatures. While large objects (like those in a building) falling and colliding together might produce the same quantity of heat, they typically dont produce the concentrated heat energy needed to get high temperatures in a substance.
This program has one small but critical error..
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
This formula is incorrect. The innitial velocity is supposed to be squared, not multiplied by 2. It looks like you just forgot to put 2 stars instead of 1.
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**
This program outputs how much kinetic engery was dissipated, but that does not explain the temperatures reached. In addition how much of this energy do you think converted into heat, and not all the work done (breaking things up, and the sound)??
Also what this program does well is calculate the total time for the floors to collapse with conservation of momentum, which (after the correction is made) is approximately 9 seconds staring from the 71 st floor -- without any resistance factored in.
It would be interesting to alter the program slightly to factor in the considerable resitance that every floor would provide on the way down -- that is, if it hasnt been done by somebody already in this thread somewhere.
Does anybody know a resonable estimate of the maximum hold of each floor ??
...ohh and please no insults or condescending sarcasm - just discussion.
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.
....yeah, basics. But this heat energy produced would be very diffuse. How do you suppose the heat would produce such high temperatures - particularly those high enough to ignite office materials and melt structural steel?? High temperatures are not usually observed as a result of large falling objects colliding into each other. Additionally much of this heat would be dissipated into the air as the building was falling, and not trapped.
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.
Yes but the difference is that bombs and lasers beams produce high temperatures. While large objects (like those in a building) falling and colliding together might produce the same quantity of heat, they typically dont produce the concentrated heat energy needed to get high temperatures in a substance.
This program has one small but critical error..
Yes but the difference is that bombs and lasers beams produce high temperatures. While large objects (like those in a building) falling and colliding together might produce the same quantity of heat, they typically dont produce the concentrated heat energy needed to get high temperatures in a substance.
This program has one small but critical error..
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
This formula is incorrect. The innitial velocity is supposed to be squared, not multiplied by 2. It looks like you just forgot to put 2 stars instead of 1.
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**
This program outputs how much kinetic engery was dissipated, but that does not explain the temperatures reached. In addition how much of this energy do you think converted into heat, and not all the work done (breaking things up, and the sound)??
Also what this program does well is calculate the total time for the floors to collapse with conservation of momentum, which (after the correction is made) is approximately 9 seconds staring from the 71 st floor -- without any resistance factored in.
It would be interesting to alter the program slightly to factor in the considerable resitance that every floor would provide on the way down -- that is, if it hasnt been done by somebody already in this thread somewhere.
Does anybody know a resonable estimate of the maximum hold of each floor ??
...ohh and please no insults or condescending sarcasm - just discussion.
Finally someone with an honest question.
I didn't write the program but I have e-mailed Schneibster to answer your question.
But from his post he says...
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.
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.
Do you agree with this and if not why not?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
Note the signatories...
The PNAC is a think tank and lobbying group, as such it has no real power.
Now the people in it of course are at some high positions, and of course are influential while they are in office, but real power is harder to define.
There are LOTS of influential people in Washington (and elsewhere) but influence and power in a democracy is not quite the same.
Arthur
The people who wanted war with Iraq in 1996 are the same people who just happen to be in power when we go to war with Iraq. The people who were wrong about evidence for WMD and the cost of the war are the same people from the PNAC...
You are right, the PNAC doesn't have the power to do anything as the PNAC but it's members can conspire to achieve PNAC goals can it not? In effect the PNAC can get it's agenda through even though it doesn't have a PNAC stamp.
Group A wants a war with Iraq
Members of Group A get in power
Poor evidence is largely compiled by Group A members.
The evidence Group A compiles is called "Shiit" by the Secritary of State before the UN speech. He then spends hours on a new presentation to UN.
Group A members in power have a war based on poor evidence
One of Group A members in power is indited for not being truthful about the outing of the spouse of someone who exposed a part of the evidence as unreliable.
This is not a 9/11 style conspiracy with no whistle-blowers.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm
Just think about it ADUO.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Feb 28 2006, 05:12 AM)
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.
....yeah, basics. But this heat energy produced would be very diffuse. How do you suppose the heat would produce such high temperatures - particularly those high enough to ignite office materials and melt structural steel?? High temperatures are not usually observed as a result of large falling objects colliding into each other. Additionally much of this heat would be dissipated into the air as the building was falling, and not trapped.
QUOTE
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.
Yes but the difference is that bombs and lasers beams produce high temperatures. While large objects (like those in a building) falling and colliding together might produce the same quantity of heat, they typically dont produce the concentrated heat energy needed to get high temperatures in a substance.
This program has one small but critical error..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
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. |
Yes but the difference is that bombs and lasers beams produce high temperatures. While large objects (like those in a building) falling and colliding together might produce the same quantity of heat, they typically dont produce the concentrated heat energy needed to get high temperatures in a substance.
This program has one small but critical error..
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
This formula is incorrect. The innitial velocity is supposed to be squared, not multiplied by 2. It looks like you just forgot to put 2 stars instead of 1.
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**
This program outputs how much kinetic engery was dissipated, but that does not explain the temperatures reached. In addition how much of this energy do you think converted into heat, and not all the work done (breaking things up, and the sound)??
Also what this program does well is calculate the total time for the floors to collapse with conservation of momentum, which (after the correction is made) is approximately 9 seconds staring from the 71 st floor -- without any resistance factored in.
It would be interesting to alter the program slightly to factor in the considerable resitance that every floor would provide on the way down -- that is, if it hasnt been done by somebody already in this thread somewhere.
Does anybody know a resonable estimate of the maximum hold of each floor ??
...ohh and please no insults or condescending sarcasm - just discussion.
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 03:41 PM)
Odd is it not?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
...
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
...
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
In case anyone is wondering how far and what stands in the way of WTC 7 from WTC 1.
Here's a picture taken from WTC 1.
Arthur
Here's a picture taken from WTC 1.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest_Observer+Mar 1 2006, 10:43 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Feb 28 2006, 05:12 AM)
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.
....yeah, basics. But this heat energy produced would be very diffuse. How do you suppose the heat would produce such high temperatures - particularly those high enough to ignite office materials and melt structural steel?? High temperatures are not usually observed as a result of large falling objects colliding into each other. Additionally much of this heat would be dissipated into the air as the building was falling, and not trapped.
QUOTE
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.
Yes but the difference is that bombs and lasers beams produce high temperatures. While large objects (like those in a building) falling and colliding together might produce the same quantity of heat, they typically dont produce the concentrated heat energy needed to get high temperatures in a substance.
This program has one small but critical error..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
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. |
Yes but the difference is that bombs and lasers beams produce high temperatures. While large objects (like those in a building) falling and colliding together might produce the same quantity of heat, they typically dont produce the concentrated heat energy needed to get high temperatures in a substance.
This program has one small but critical error..
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
This formula is incorrect. The innitial velocity is supposed to be squared, not multiplied by 2. It looks like you just forgot to put 2 stars instead of 1.
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**
This program outputs how much kinetic engery was dissipated, but that does not explain the temperatures reached. In addition how much of this energy do you think converted into heat, and not all the work done (breaking things up, and the sound)??
Also what this program does well is calculate the total time for the floors to collapse with conservation of momentum, which (after the correction is made) is approximately 9 seconds staring from the 71 st floor -- without any resistance factored in.
It would be interesting to alter the program slightly to factor in the considerable resitance that every floor would provide on the way down -- that is, if it hasnt been done by somebody already in this thread somewhere.
Does anybody know a resonable estimate of the maximum hold of each floor ??
...ohh and please no insults or condescending sarcasm - just discussion.
Finally someone with an honest question.
I didn't write the program but I have e-mailed Schneibster to answer your question.
But from his post he says...
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.
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.
Do you agree with this and if not why not?
QUOTE ("Common sense"+)
Do you agree with this and if not why not?
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.
I dont think one can deduce that since there was a alot of heat produced throughout the whole building(this is key), then that could conceivably acheive high temperatures.
The buiding falling and the collisions of the floors would indeed gradually produce alot of heat energy with every collision , but it would be spread througout a large amount of mass -- which would mean low temperatures. I think it would be very difficult to get temperatures that high just from collisions in a crumbling building.
The building could have the same amount of heat energy as "quarter ton of TNT" (or some explosive), the same way a large iceberg could also contain that same quantity of heat energy- the difference would be the temperature.
QUOTE
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.
I dont think one can deduce that since there was a alot of heat produced throughout the whole building(this is key), then that could conceivably acheive high temperatures.
The buiding falling and the collisions of the floors would indeed gradually produce alot of heat energy with every collision , but it would be spread througout a large amount of mass -- which would mean low temperatures. I think it would be very difficult to get temperatures that high just from collisions in a crumbling building.
The building could have the same amount of heat energy as "quarter ton of TNT" (or some explosive), the same way a large iceberg could also contain that same quantity of heat energy- the difference would be the temperature.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 09:03 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2006, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 12:43 PM)
It wouldn't be a "theory" in the scientific sense. It would be a preliminary hypothesis which may change as new information comes out. Namely the NIST report.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
Where's your (or anybody's) evidence it was Muslims?
The building could have the same amount of heat energy as "quarter ton of TNT" (or some explosive), the same way a large iceberg could also contain that same quantity of heat energy- the difference would be the temperature.
I realize that this sounds like a strawman argument, but I just meant to demonstrate the fallacy in thinking that where there is alot of heat there must be high temperatures.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
Where's your (or anybody's) evidence it was Muslims?
QUOTE ("Observer"+)
The building could have the same amount of heat energy as "quarter ton of TNT" (or some explosive), the same way a large iceberg could also contain that same quantity of heat energy- the difference would be the temperature.
I realize that this sounds like a strawman argument, but I just meant to demonstrate the fallacy in thinking that where there is alot of heat there must be high temperatures.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 11:14 PM)
In case anyone is wondering how far and what stands in the way of WTC 7 from WTC 1.
Here's a picture taken from WTC 1.
Arthur
All the more amazing that it was not completely destroyed at the time the tower collapsed. Speaks volumes for the ordered fashion in which the tower came down, instead of the asymmetric chaos one might expect from a gravity-driven collapse (controlled demos have a tendency to do just that...*control* the demo).
Here's a picture taken from WTC 1.
Arthur
All the more amazing that it was not completely destroyed at the time the tower collapsed. Speaks volumes for the ordered fashion in which the tower came down, instead of the asymmetric chaos one might expect from a gravity-driven collapse (controlled demos have a tendency to do just that...*control* the demo).
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 1 2006, 08:11 PM)
All the more amazing that it was not completely destroyed at the time the tower collapsed. Speaks volumes for the ordered fashion in which the tower came down, instead of the asymmetric chaos one might expect from a gravity-driven collapse (controlled demos have a tendency to do just that...*control* the demo).
Yeah, unless you actually looked at how the towers were built, tube within a tube, and then the way they fell appears to be quite reasonable.
Arthur
Yeah, unless you actually looked at how the towers were built, tube within a tube, and then the way they fell appears to be quite reasonable.
Arthur
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 2 2006, 12:03 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 09:03 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2006, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 12:43 PM)
It wouldn't be a "theory" in the scientific sense. It would be a preliminary hypothesis which may change as new information comes out. Namely the NIST report.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
Where's your (or anybody's) evidence it was Muslims?
More than your evidence it's Bush...
The building could have the same amount of heat energy as "quarter ton of TNT" (or some explosive), the same way a large iceberg could also contain that same quantity of heat energy- the difference would be the temperature.
I realize that this sounds like a strawman argument, but I just meant to demonstrate the fallacy in thinking that where there is alot of heat there must be high temperatures.
Let me just say as I have before, I'm not hear for the physics. I'm here to inject common sense into the debate.
That said,
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature. As Schneibster said, a quarter kiloton of TNT. But even a quarter kiloton of TNT which goes off encased in an iceberg would give off the same temperature as if it was out in the open wouldn't it? Of course the melting ice would use energy but we don't have melting ice under the rubble.
And if that energy stays insulated under rubble why wouldn't it melt steel?
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
Where's your (or anybody's) evidence it was Muslims?
More than your evidence it's Bush...
QUOTE (Guest_Observer+Mar 2 2006, 12:05 AM)
QUOTE ("Observer"+)
The building could have the same amount of heat energy as "quarter ton of TNT" (or some explosive), the same way a large iceberg could also contain that same quantity of heat energy- the difference would be the temperature.
I realize that this sounds like a strawman argument, but I just meant to demonstrate the fallacy in thinking that where there is alot of heat there must be high temperatures.
Let me just say as I have before, I'm not hear for the physics. I'm here to inject common sense into the debate.
That said,
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature. As Schneibster said, a quarter kiloton of TNT. But even a quarter kiloton of TNT which goes off encased in an iceberg would give off the same temperature as if it was out in the open wouldn't it? Of course the melting ice would use energy but we don't have melting ice under the rubble.
And if that energy stays insulated under rubble why wouldn't it melt steel?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 10:49 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 1 2006, 03:41 PM)
Odd is it not?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
...
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
Another LSo'S I see.
http://www.rense.com/general65/wtc7_louvers_fire.jpg
http://www.wtc7.net/cache/killtown_wtc7_fi...wtc7_rubble.jpg
Arthur
That one photo is one I haven't seen. The one below Spak's photos.
Cool! Where did that one come from?
We have photos and quotes to tell us that WTC 7 was a raging inferno which the firemen did not fight for fear of collapse YET when it does collapse, in that most artful way, there is not a sign of fire.
...
Where there's smoke there's fire - pity no smoke to be seen either eh?
Another LSo'S I see.
http://www.rense.com/general65/wtc7_louvers_fire.jpg
http://www.wtc7.net/cache/killtown_wtc7_fi...wtc7_rubble.jpg
Arthur
That one photo is one I haven't seen. The one below Spak's photos.
Cool! Where did that one come from?
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 2 2006, 12:11 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 11:14 PM)
In case anyone is wondering how far and what stands in the way of WTC 7 from WTC 1.
Here's a picture taken from WTC 1.
Arthur
All the more amazing that it was not completely destroyed at the time the tower collapsed. Speaks volumes for the ordered fashion in which the tower came down, instead of the asymmetric chaos one might expect from a gravity-driven collapse (controlled demos have a tendency to do just that...*control* the demo).
What would cause anything to go any further? The building did NOT topple. It could not topple since it started collapsing from about the 96th floor. Debris that was ejected from the collapse did have some horizontal velocity. Any debris that did not get ejected fell in one direction, down, onto and through the building.
As it is the picture shows that the angle from the top of the tower (assuming the pic is taken from there) to the top of #7 is between 15 and 20 degrees.
At 20 degrees that would place the front of WTC 7 approx 300 feet from the closest wall of WTC 1.
The building could have the same amount of heat energy as "quarter ton of TNT" (or some explosive), the same way a large iceberg could also contain that same quantity of heat energy- the difference would be the temperature.
I realize that this sounds like a strawman argument, but I just meant to demonstrate the fallacy in thinking that where there is alot of heat there must be high temperatures.
Let me just say as I have before, I'm not hear for the physics. I'm here to inject common sense into the debate.
That said,
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature. As Schneibster said, a quarter kiloton of TNT. But even a quarter kiloton of TNT which goes off encased in an iceberg would give off the same temperature as if it was out in the open wouldn't it? Of course the melting ice would use energy but we don't have melting ice under the rubble.
And if that energy stays insulated under rubble why wouldn't it melt steel?
Part of my job is splicing optic fiber. The sheild around some fiber cable is armoured and there are one or two solid steel wires(about 18 gauge) that run along the armour sheild. To part the plastic covering you use the steel wire by pulling it out. This is difficult and requires a hefty pull with a pair of pliers(locking pliers are better). Today I was doing just this when the pliers slipped along the steel wire for about 10 inches. I grabbed the wire to reposition the pliers and that wire was too hot to hold onto with bare hands. It had started at a temp of about 0 C and simmply the friction of pliers along its length caused it to heat up so much that I had to wait a couple of minutes to let it cool down again.
That example is miniscule compared to what was happening in the WTC towers.
That said,
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
To get high temperatures (those high enough to melt steel) you need a high concentration of thermal energy in an object. Just summing up all the thermal energy produced in all the collisions throughout the entire building, does not explain how that heat could get concentrated enough to melt steel. Its a lot of heat produced, but its spread throughout a very large mass, which would not acheive significant temperature increase in the building -- especially with the heat easily escaping to the air around the building as it was falling.
In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissapated kinetic energy.
With that said, those temperatures are not consitent with any controlled demolition either. In a typical controlled demolition of a building, they dont get pools of molten steel at the bottom of the rubble pile -- not from the kinetic energy dissapated during the collapse, or from the explosives. In controlled demolition they use high order explosives (like RDX) which create alot of explosive force but not as much heat energy, or temperatures even close to melting steel.
To get temperatures like that you would need some type of low orderincendiary device - that produces high heat. These are not not used in controlled demolitions (at least not to my knowledge).
This is why I'm not beleiving the whole thing - its just inconceivable that there would be pools of molten steel at the base of the building. Is this really verifiable?? Is there evidence?? If so, its very peculiar.
As Schneibster said, a quarter kiloton of TNT. But even a quarter kiloton of TNT which goes off encased in an iceberg would give off the same temperature as if it was out in the open wouldn't it? Of course the melting ice would use energy but we don't have melting ice under the rubble.
And if that energy stays insulated under rubble why wouldn't it melt steel?
My statement about the iceberg was to demonstrate how there is not a direct correlation between heat and temperature. What I said is that a large iceberg (just sitting there -with out anything) can easily contain the same amount of heat throughout its whole mass, that a ton of explosives produces. The difference is in the temperature. In the same respect, all the kinetic energy dissapated througout the entire WTC building added up, could have the same amount of heat energy as "ten kilotons of explosives" - but that does not explain temperatures high enough to melt steel.
Temperature can be thought of as the concentration or intensity of thermal energy - much like the relationship between weight and density.
Temperature can be thought of as the concentration or intensity of thermal energy - much like the relationship between weight and density.
I meant to say "mass and density".... i guess i should register so I can edit posts.
Here's a picture taken from WTC 1.
Arthur
All the more amazing that it was not completely destroyed at the time the tower collapsed. Speaks volumes for the ordered fashion in which the tower came down, instead of the asymmetric chaos one might expect from a gravity-driven collapse (controlled demos have a tendency to do just that...*control* the demo).
What would cause anything to go any further? The building did NOT topple. It could not topple since it started collapsing from about the 96th floor. Debris that was ejected from the collapse did have some horizontal velocity. Any debris that did not get ejected fell in one direction, down, onto and through the building.
As it is the picture shows that the angle from the top of the tower (assuming the pic is taken from there) to the top of #7 is between 15 and 20 degrees.
At 20 degrees that would place the front of WTC 7 approx 300 feet from the closest wall of WTC 1.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 01:00 AM)
QUOTE (Guest_Observer+Mar 2 2006, 12:05 AM)
QUOTE ("Observer"+)
The building could have the same amount of heat energy as "quarter ton of TNT" (or some explosive), the same way a large iceberg could also contain that same quantity of heat energy- the difference would be the temperature.
I realize that this sounds like a strawman argument, but I just meant to demonstrate the fallacy in thinking that where there is alot of heat there must be high temperatures.
Let me just say as I have before, I'm not hear for the physics. I'm here to inject common sense into the debate.
That said,
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature. As Schneibster said, a quarter kiloton of TNT. But even a quarter kiloton of TNT which goes off encased in an iceberg would give off the same temperature as if it was out in the open wouldn't it? Of course the melting ice would use energy but we don't have melting ice under the rubble.
And if that energy stays insulated under rubble why wouldn't it melt steel?
Part of my job is splicing optic fiber. The sheild around some fiber cable is armoured and there are one or two solid steel wires(about 18 gauge) that run along the armour sheild. To part the plastic covering you use the steel wire by pulling it out. This is difficult and requires a hefty pull with a pair of pliers(locking pliers are better). Today I was doing just this when the pliers slipped along the steel wire for about 10 inches. I grabbed the wire to reposition the pliers and that wire was too hot to hold onto with bare hands. It had started at a temp of about 0 C and simmply the friction of pliers along its length caused it to heat up so much that I had to wait a couple of minutes to let it cool down again.
That example is miniscule compared to what was happening in the WTC towers.
I'm assuming you are referring to this pic:
It came from a Finnish site.
I can't read Finn, but I do recognize it as WTC 7
I think this is the ONLY shot I've seen from this angle though.
The fire is obviously pretty low in the building because you can see the top of a street light.
Arthur
It came from a Finnish site.
I can't read Finn, but I do recognize it as WTC 7
I think this is the ONLY shot I've seen from this angle though.
The fire is obviously pretty low in the building because you can see the top of a street light.
Arthur
QUOTE ("Common Sense"+)
That said,
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
To get high temperatures (those high enough to melt steel) you need a high concentration of thermal energy in an object. Just summing up all the thermal energy produced in all the collisions throughout the entire building, does not explain how that heat could get concentrated enough to melt steel. Its a lot of heat produced, but its spread throughout a very large mass, which would not acheive significant temperature increase in the building -- especially with the heat easily escaping to the air around the building as it was falling.
In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissapated kinetic energy.
With that said, those temperatures are not consitent with any controlled demolition either. In a typical controlled demolition of a building, they dont get pools of molten steel at the bottom of the rubble pile -- not from the kinetic energy dissapated during the collapse, or from the explosives. In controlled demolition they use high order explosives (like RDX) which create alot of explosive force but not as much heat energy, or temperatures even close to melting steel.
To get temperatures like that you would need some type of low orderincendiary device - that produces high heat. These are not not used in controlled demolitions (at least not to my knowledge).
This is why I'm not beleiving the whole thing - its just inconceivable that there would be pools of molten steel at the base of the building. Is this really verifiable?? Is there evidence?? If so, its very peculiar.
QUOTE
As Schneibster said, a quarter kiloton of TNT. But even a quarter kiloton of TNT which goes off encased in an iceberg would give off the same temperature as if it was out in the open wouldn't it? Of course the melting ice would use energy but we don't have melting ice under the rubble.
And if that energy stays insulated under rubble why wouldn't it melt steel?
My statement about the iceberg was to demonstrate how there is not a direct correlation between heat and temperature. What I said is that a large iceberg (just sitting there -with out anything) can easily contain the same amount of heat throughout its whole mass, that a ton of explosives produces. The difference is in the temperature. In the same respect, all the kinetic energy dissapated througout the entire WTC building added up, could have the same amount of heat energy as "ten kilotons of explosives" - but that does not explain temperatures high enough to melt steel.
Temperature can be thought of as the concentration or intensity of thermal energy - much like the relationship between weight and density.
QUOTE (Observer+)
Temperature can be thought of as the concentration or intensity of thermal energy - much like the relationship between weight and density.
I meant to say "mass and density".... i guess i should register so I can edit posts.
First let me thank you for treating me with respect. I will do the same in my replies.
I'm not sure if their was a "Pool of steel". Was their a "Pool" of metal? I have heard something to that effect but as for "Steel" being pooled I haven't seen the evidence.
I'm not sure if their was a "Pool of steel". Was their a "Pool" of metal? I have heard something to that effect but as for "Steel" being pooled I haven't seen the evidence.
In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissapated kinetic energy.
I'm not sure these are apples with apples. We haven't seen a portion of a mountain burn at 1,1,00 d C before a rock slide. There was a portion of the steel which was preheated before collapse. After collapse there was 1,000 gallons of gas per building which could not be found. Include all the office products and lots of aluminum. Not only from the building but the plane itself. Speaking of plane, NIST says only a portion of the fuel was burned on impact. Were any of those alone able to produce the temperatures seen? I doubt it but it was in an incredible mix-master of debris. Glass from computer monitors and windows must have been everywhere. PVC, copper from wires, plastics of all kind... I could go on.
My point is it's not apples and apples to talk about a natural rock slide or anything else as an example to this collapse. We have already talked about the building collapse having all the ingredients to make thermite without the governments help. (Or anyone else) That's not something you find in a rock slide. I know what you meant though. It's unlikely but then this collapse is so unique don't you think?
QUOTE
To get high temperatures (those high enough to melt steel) you need a high concentration of thermal energy in an object. Just summing up all the thermal energy produced in all the collisions throughout the entire building, does not explain how that heat could get concentrated enough to melt steel.
I'm not sure if their was a "Pool of steel". Was their a "Pool" of metal? I have heard something to that effect but as for "Steel" being pooled I haven't seen the evidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To get high temperatures (those high enough to melt steel) you need a high concentration of thermal energy in an object. Just summing up all the thermal energy produced in all the collisions throughout the entire building, does not explain how that heat could get concentrated enough to melt steel. |
I'm not sure if their was a "Pool of steel". Was their a "Pool" of metal? I have heard something to that effect but as for "Steel" being pooled I haven't seen the evidence.
In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissapated kinetic energy.
I'm not sure these are apples with apples. We haven't seen a portion of a mountain burn at 1,1,00 d C before a rock slide. There was a portion of the steel which was preheated before collapse. After collapse there was 1,000 gallons of gas per building which could not be found. Include all the office products and lots of aluminum. Not only from the building but the plane itself. Speaking of plane, NIST says only a portion of the fuel was burned on impact. Were any of those alone able to produce the temperatures seen? I doubt it but it was in an incredible mix-master of debris. Glass from computer monitors and windows must have been everywhere. PVC, copper from wires, plastics of all kind... I could go on.
My point is it's not apples and apples to talk about a natural rock slide or anything else as an example to this collapse. We have already talked about the building collapse having all the ingredients to make thermite without the governments help. (Or anyone else) That's not something you find in a rock slide. I know what you meant though. It's unlikely but then this collapse is so unique don't you think?
Guest Observer,
No one has ever shown a picture of a pool of melted metal of ANY KIND, let alone steel.
Nor has one shown a picture a of solidified mass of previously melted metal, of any kind, let alone steel.
But there was a LOT of metal in the towers, including 3,600 lbs of lead for the emergency lighting system alone. Think of all the sealed lead acid batteries that people were using for PC backup, all the NiCads, all the Lithium cells. Think of all the alumnium cladding on the towers, not to mention the two planes. When you think melted metal, think many different candidates, most of which melt at temps much lower than steel.
In any case, obviously a LOT of heat was generated in the collapse.
But the Towers were also incredibly massive, so while a lot of heat was generated, I doubt the rubble pile heated up more than a dozen or so degrees C ON AVERAGE. (my guess, but somebody could work it out if they really cared to)
But there WERE very hot spots with in it and there was plenty of fuel, in fact an incredible amount of fuel and of course there were fires burning within it.
So when they pulled those pieces out, weeks later, it wasn't like they had been that hot the whole time, they had heated up by BEING IN THE BURNING RUBBLE PILE.
As one fireman said in one of the videos taken 6 weeks after 9/11 they could see inside the pile and it was like a roaring oven. This experienced firefighter estimated the temp at 1,500 degrees, which is just about right for the color of the steel that they pulled out.
Arthur
No one has ever shown a picture of a pool of melted metal of ANY KIND, let alone steel.
Nor has one shown a picture a of solidified mass of previously melted metal, of any kind, let alone steel.
But there was a LOT of metal in the towers, including 3,600 lbs of lead for the emergency lighting system alone. Think of all the sealed lead acid batteries that people were using for PC backup, all the NiCads, all the Lithium cells. Think of all the alumnium cladding on the towers, not to mention the two planes. When you think melted metal, think many different candidates, most of which melt at temps much lower than steel.
In any case, obviously a LOT of heat was generated in the collapse.
But the Towers were also incredibly massive, so while a lot of heat was generated, I doubt the rubble pile heated up more than a dozen or so degrees C ON AVERAGE. (my guess, but somebody could work it out if they really cared to)
But there WERE very hot spots with in it and there was plenty of fuel, in fact an incredible amount of fuel and of course there were fires burning within it.
So when they pulled those pieces out, weeks later, it wasn't like they had been that hot the whole time, they had heated up by BEING IN THE BURNING RUBBLE PILE.
As one fireman said in one of the videos taken 6 weeks after 9/11 they could see inside the pile and it was like a roaring oven. This experienced firefighter estimated the temp at 1,500 degrees, which is just about right for the color of the steel that they pulled out.
Arthur
Removed post
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 04:31 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 1 2006, 08:11 PM)
All the more amazing that it was not completely destroyed at the time the tower collapsed. Speaks volumes for the ordered fashion in which the tower came down, instead of the asymmetric chaos one might expect from a gravity-driven collapse (controlled demos have a tendency to do just that...*control* the demo).
Yeah, unless you actually looked at how the towers were built, tube within a tube, and then the way they fell appears to be quite reasonable.
Arthur
Yeah, unless you actually looked at how the towers were built, tube within a tube, and then the way they fell appears to be quite reasonable.
Arthur