QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 08:40 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 2 2006, 04:29 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 2 2006, 03:34 AM)
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
Arthur , why do you constantly bring this disinformation up? The same thing, time and time again. The only structure that could be considered a tube is the elevator shafts , a small part of the massive core.
I posted links to a few of you're own CT sites which call it a tube within a tube. The architect calls it a tube within a tube. Who are you to say it isn't?
Do some research before you post
Becouse it is not true:
tube P Pronunciation Key (t b, ty
n.
1.
a. A hollow cylinder, especially one that conveys a fluid or functions as a passage.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Tube
And you continue to post it.
My god you are dense...
They would be a tube-within-a-tube design. The exterior skin would feature columns two-feet square, spaced 4 feet 8-7/8 inches apart (possibly more), resulting in a much stronger design (5 times minimum), while permitting larger windows admitting more natural sunlight. The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/
Structural System
1 and 2 World Trade Center used the so-called tube within a tube architecture, in which closely-spaced external columns form the building's perimeter walls, and a dense bundle of columns forms its core. Tall buildings have to resist primarily two kinds of forces: lateral loading (horizontal force) due mainly to the wind, and gravity loading (downward force) due to the building's weight. The tube within a tube design uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading. The floors and hat truss completed the structure, spanning the ring of space between the perimeter wall and the core, and transmitting lateral forces between those structures.
The tube within a tube architecture was relatively new at the time the Twin Towers were built, but has since been widely employed in the design of new skyscrapers. In fact most of the world's tallest buildings use it, including:
The Sears Tower (1450 ft)
The World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft)
The Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft)
The John Hancock Center (1105 ft)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
The WTC is topical tube-in-tube structure system, whose outer tube is dense-columns-deep-beams system. The width of the column is 476.25mm while the space between columns is just 558.8mm. The thickness of beams is 1219.2mm. In order to simplify the numerical model and decrease the degree of freedom, the outer dense-columns-deep-beams tube system and inner steel truss tube system are approached with shell elements. The thickness of shell elements is established with equivalent section method. Such approximate tube has the same stiffness of global bending and axial deformation as the real structure, while the local bending stiffness of structure elements is not consisted with the real condition. Since the primary deformation of tube-in-tube structure system is global bending and axial compression deformation, this approximate method should be feasible.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
"The new skyscrapers will feature a 'tube-within-a-tube' construction," he said. "The old core was a gypsum core; the new one will be made of masonry, which will exceed the fire code."
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/media/beltonarticle.htm
Need more?
We are going to continue to call it what it is. You can continue to make yourself look stupid by saying it isn't. It's your choice...
I just learned :
The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
That how stuff works for some reason talks about FEA shell element in the WTC site:
Commen Sences quote:
The thickness of shell elements is established with equivalent section method. Such approximate tube has the same stiffness of global bending and axial deformation as the real structure, while the local bending stiffness of structure elements is not consisted with the real condition.
Howstuffworks quote:
The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
That you must make money from these sites:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
That you spam so much you don’t expect people to check your sources.
The outer structure might be considered a tube the core certainly was not.
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
Arthur , why do you constantly bring this disinformation up? The same thing, time and time again. The only structure that could be considered a tube is the elevator shafts , a small part of the massive core.
I posted links to a few of you're own CT sites which call it a tube within a tube. The architect calls it a tube within a tube. Who are you to say it isn't?
Do some research before you post
Becouse it is not true:
tube P Pronunciation Key (t b, ty
n.
1.
a. A hollow cylinder, especially one that conveys a fluid or functions as a passage.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Tube
And you continue to post it.
My god you are dense...
They would be a tube-within-a-tube design. The exterior skin would feature columns two-feet square, spaced 4 feet 8-7/8 inches apart (possibly more), resulting in a much stronger design (5 times minimum), while permitting larger windows admitting more natural sunlight. The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/
Structural System
1 and 2 World Trade Center used the so-called tube within a tube architecture, in which closely-spaced external columns form the building's perimeter walls, and a dense bundle of columns forms its core. Tall buildings have to resist primarily two kinds of forces: lateral loading (horizontal force) due mainly to the wind, and gravity loading (downward force) due to the building's weight. The tube within a tube design uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading. The floors and hat truss completed the structure, spanning the ring of space between the perimeter wall and the core, and transmitting lateral forces between those structures.
The tube within a tube architecture was relatively new at the time the Twin Towers were built, but has since been widely employed in the design of new skyscrapers. In fact most of the world's tallest buildings use it, including:
The Sears Tower (1450 ft)
The World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft)
The Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft)
The John Hancock Center (1105 ft)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
The WTC is topical tube-in-tube structure system, whose outer tube is dense-columns-deep-beams system. The width of the column is 476.25mm while the space between columns is just 558.8mm. The thickness of beams is 1219.2mm. In order to simplify the numerical model and decrease the degree of freedom, the outer dense-columns-deep-beams tube system and inner steel truss tube system are approached with shell elements. The thickness of shell elements is established with equivalent section method. Such approximate tube has the same stiffness of global bending and axial deformation as the real structure, while the local bending stiffness of structure elements is not consisted with the real condition. Since the primary deformation of tube-in-tube structure system is global bending and axial compression deformation, this approximate method should be feasible.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
"The new skyscrapers will feature a 'tube-within-a-tube' construction," he said. "The old core was a gypsum core; the new one will be made of masonry, which will exceed the fire code."
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/media/beltonarticle.htm
Need more?
We are going to continue to call it what it is. You can continue to make yourself look stupid by saying it isn't. It's your choice...
I just learned :
The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
That how stuff works for some reason talks about FEA shell element in the WTC site:
Commen Sences quote:
The thickness of shell elements is established with equivalent section method. Such approximate tube has the same stiffness of global bending and axial deformation as the real structure, while the local bending stiffness of structure elements is not consisted with the real condition.
Howstuffworks quote:
The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
That you must make money from these sites:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
That you spam so much you don’t expect people to check your sources.
The outer structure might be considered a tube the core certainly was not.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Mar 2 2006, 01:36 AM)
NIST's collapse creed, repeated eleven times with identical wording (and once with a slightly different one) in the report of project 6 dealing with the collapse sequences, is this:
"The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued." [10]
And after 6 months since the Final Report not ONE reputable Engineering firm or Architectural firm has claimed that that statment is in error.
Arthur
"The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued." [10]
And after 6 months since the Final Report not ONE reputable Engineering firm or Architectural firm has claimed that that statment is in error.
Arthur
QUOTE (ScottS+Mar 1 2006, 09:47 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 2 2006, 03:20 AM)
Remove post
I don't know, I just used the same name when I post from work.
Sorry, I thought Commen Sence / Shnobster was playing games. I apologize , I should have read your post more closely. Common Sense/ Commen Sense / Sensible /######### admits to using sock puppets.
I don't know, I just used the same name when I post from work.
Sorry, I thought Commen Sence / Shnobster was playing games. I apologize , I should have read your post more closely. Common Sense/ Commen Sense / Sensible /######### admits to using sock puppets.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 2 2006, 04:13 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 04:09 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 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're either confusing me with somebody else, or else lying through your teeth. E.g., I don't even know who Manning is, or what he said.
Which is it? Lying or confusion?
Among the many errors, doctored photo, and misquotes within Jones paper, Manning is one of the many people Jones blatantly misquoted in his paper. Under section 9.
Jones did some creative writing and felt the Mannings paper needed some spicing up so he felt the need to rewrite it.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Of cource Jones was caught red handed.
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html
Almost as bad as what he does with FEMA's paper where he adds the words fire/damage-caused collapse to make it seem like FEMA says something which it doesn't.
Or where he quotes Eagar by saying "This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range"
But he edits out Eagar from the same paragraph "Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C."
Or where he edits Eagar by stating
"Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)"
But Jones cuts out the next paragraph
"The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."
Or where he edits out from Stephen Gregory
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
Or where he quotes from Barnett
"Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated" (Jones then goes on.... "observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel."
Yet had Jones read his OWN PAPER he would of seen the temps were no where near 2860C under section 2 where he talks about temps of 1000C. In fact the later tests on the steel stated "observations indicate that steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850C" and the slag of around 940C.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
Jones of course doesn't seem to realize that Gyp board dust, heating oil etc. are a major source of sulfer.
This is just a sample of Jones many errors. I haven't even gone into depth on errors with timing with building 7, or the section on the drop of the Antenna (which he recently edited to address his major error on the NIST report).
Jones has to know what he's was doing.
Check out Jones doctored photo again on section 1
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
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?
You're either confusing me with somebody else, or else lying through your teeth. E.g., I don't even know who Manning is, or what he said.
Which is it? Lying or confusion?
Among the many errors, doctored photo, and misquotes within Jones paper, Manning is one of the many people Jones blatantly misquoted in his paper. Under section 9.
Jones did some creative writing and felt the Mannings paper needed some spicing up so he felt the need to rewrite it.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Of cource Jones was caught red handed.
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html
Almost as bad as what he does with FEMA's paper where he adds the words fire/damage-caused collapse to make it seem like FEMA says something which it doesn't.
Or where he quotes Eagar by saying "This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range"
But he edits out Eagar from the same paragraph "Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C."
Or where he edits Eagar by stating
"Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)"
But Jones cuts out the next paragraph
"The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."
Or where he edits out from Stephen Gregory
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
Or where he quotes from Barnett
"Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated" (Jones then goes on.... "observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel."
Yet had Jones read his OWN PAPER he would of seen the temps were no where near 2860C under section 2 where he talks about temps of 1000C. In fact the later tests on the steel stated "observations indicate that steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850C" and the slag of around 940C.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
Jones of course doesn't seem to realize that Gyp board dust, heating oil etc. are a major source of sulfer.
This is just a sample of Jones many errors. I haven't even gone into depth on errors with timing with building 7, or the section on the drop of the Antenna (which he recently edited to address his major error on the NIST report).
Jones has to know what he's was doing.
Check out Jones doctored photo again on section 1
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 2 2006, 02:34 AM)
I just learned :
The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
Howstuffworks quote:
The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.
The outer structure might be considered a tube the core certainly was not.
That first part about using the same columns and walls of RC is pure BS.
The sentence you LEFT OUT of your quote from How Things Work:
Now, look at the sentence before the "Box within a Box" sentence:
They decided to build long "tubes,"
NOTE TUBES PLURAL
where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building
THAT's THE OUTER TUBE
and at the central core of the building.
THATS the INNER TUBE
You seem to be forgetting that a BOX is simply a TUBE that is closed at both ends.
In this case the bottom floor and the roof make up the ends of the "BOX".
So when they say Box within a Box they are saying the SAME as Tube within a Tube.
That is how it was built and that's what its called.
Get over it.
Arthur
The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
Howstuffworks quote:
The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.
The outer structure might be considered a tube the core certainly was not.
That first part about using the same columns and walls of RC is pure BS.
The sentence you LEFT OUT of your quote from How Things Work:
QUOTE
Its 47 heavy steel columns surrounded a large open area housing elevators, stairwells and restrooms
Now, look at the sentence before the "Box within a Box" sentence:
They decided to build long "tubes,"
NOTE TUBES PLURAL
where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building
THAT's THE OUTER TUBE
and at the central core of the building.
THATS the INNER TUBE
You seem to be forgetting that a BOX is simply a TUBE that is closed at both ends.
In this case the bottom floor and the roof make up the ends of the "BOX".
So when they say Box within a Box they are saying the SAME as Tube within a Tube.
That is how it was built and that's what its called.
Get over it.
Arthur
I had an interesting conversation with the author Mr. Steinback who wrote an article on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Although Steinback found many of their claims interesting he admitted he didn't really have time to research the claims.
Like
"Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?"
I showed him the Der Spiegel article and explained some of Griffins/Jones various other problems.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...65160-2,00.html
He stated that "I too, thought that claim was pretty extreme, but I hadn't found the
rebuttal by the time I had to go to print." But Steinback did feel there were still some unanswered questions. I agreed but went on to explain Jones and Griffins many other errors.
It was so easy to pick apart Griffin's paper on the site.
I'm hoping Steinback realized after our conversion that these guys read more like scam-artists than "scholars for truth".
Like
"Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?"
I showed him the Der Spiegel article and explained some of Griffins/Jones various other problems.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...65160-2,00.html
He stated that "I too, thought that claim was pretty extreme, but I hadn't found the
rebuttal by the time I had to go to print." But Steinback did feel there were still some unanswered questions. I agreed but went on to explain Jones and Griffins many other errors.
It was so easy to pick apart Griffin's paper on the site.
I'm hoping Steinback realized after our conversion that these guys read more like scam-artists than "scholars for truth".
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2006, 10:57 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 2 2006, 02:34 AM)
I just learned :
The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
Howstuffworks quote:
The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.
The outer structure might be considered a tube the core certainly was not.
That first part about using the same columns and walls of RC is pure BS.
The sentence you LEFT OUT of your quote from How Things Work:
Now, look at the sentence before the "Box within a Box" sentence:
They decided to build long "tubes,"
NOTE TUBES PLURAL
where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building
THAT's THE OUTER TUBE
and at the central core of the building.
THATS the INNER TUBE
You seem to be forgetting that a BOX is simply a TUBE that is closed at both ends.
In this case the bottom floor and the roof make up the ends of the "BOX".
So when they say Box within a Box they are saying the SAME as Tube within a Tube.
That is how it was built and that's what its called.
Get over it.
Arthur
You left out the picture of the 47 collomns, they sure do not appear to look like a tube :
I will let the readers decide for themself.
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.
when you use only the evidence that convicts a murderer, you are a successful prosecutor.
when you use only evidence that points to a conspiracy, it may be because there is a conspiracy. in which case, although you are a conspiracy theorist, you are right about the conspiracy.
conspiracy theorist does not equal psycho or 'wrong'.
the shred of evidence that elements within the government did it is that THEY ARE TRYING LIKE CRAZY TO COVER IT UP.
Common Sense mentioned Thermite. Is this a proposed explanation?? Thermite would definately explain it - this is used in incendiary explosive devices that I mentioned before (that can easily melt steel). But its improbable that aluminum and rust would randomly mix in just the right way ( and in the right proportions) to trigger a large thermite reaction in the building. Thermite is also not used in controlled demolitions either. I dont see how that would make sense either way.
I'm not aware of thermite being used in controlled demolition either, although I don't claim to be an expert in CD. I know that RDX is used extensively in CD, which isn't thermite.
Thermite is not a controlled method of taking out a structure. It's used to melt military vehicles that have to be abandoned to the enemy, for welding things like railroad tracks together, etc.
If anyone wishes to explain why and how they think thermite was used in a controlled demolition of the WTC or other buildings I'd be interested in hearing about it.
The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
Howstuffworks quote:
The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.
The outer structure might be considered a tube the core certainly was not.
That first part about using the same columns and walls of RC is pure BS.
The sentence you LEFT OUT of your quote from How Things Work:
QUOTE
Its 47 heavy steel columns surrounded a large open area housing elevators, stairwells and restrooms
Now, look at the sentence before the "Box within a Box" sentence:
They decided to build long "tubes,"
NOTE TUBES PLURAL
where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building
THAT's THE OUTER TUBE
and at the central core of the building.
THATS the INNER TUBE
You seem to be forgetting that a BOX is simply a TUBE that is closed at both ends.
In this case the bottom floor and the roof make up the ends of the "BOX".
So when they say Box within a Box they are saying the SAME as Tube within a Tube.
That is how it was built and that's what its called.
Get over it.
Arthur
You left out the picture of the 47 collomns, they sure do not appear to look like a tube :
I will let the readers decide for themself.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 09:03 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2006, 08:52 PM)
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.
when you use only the evidence that convicts a murderer, you are a successful prosecutor.
when you use only evidence that points to a conspiracy, it may be because there is a conspiracy. in which case, although you are a conspiracy theorist, you are right about the conspiracy.
conspiracy theorist does not equal psycho or 'wrong'.
the shred of evidence that elements within the government did it is that THEY ARE TRYING LIKE CRAZY TO COVER IT UP.
QUOTE (Guest_Observer+Mar 2 2006, 03:42 AM)
Common Sense mentioned Thermite. Is this a proposed explanation?? Thermite would definately explain it - this is used in incendiary explosive devices that I mentioned before (that can easily melt steel). But its improbable that aluminum and rust would randomly mix in just the right way ( and in the right proportions) to trigger a large thermite reaction in the building. Thermite is also not used in controlled demolitions either. I dont see how that would make sense either way.
I'm not aware of thermite being used in controlled demolition either, although I don't claim to be an expert in CD. I know that RDX is used extensively in CD, which isn't thermite.
Thermite is not a controlled method of taking out a structure. It's used to melt military vehicles that have to be abandoned to the enemy, for welding things like railroad tracks together, etc.
If anyone wishes to explain why and how they think thermite was used in a controlled demolition of the WTC or other buildings I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Here's an example of the complexity involved in a CD.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
"CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
"CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."
Check out Jones doctored photo again on section 1
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 2 2006, 05:29 AM)
QUOTE (cosmo+Mar 2 2006, 05:25 AM)
Jeeezy Kreeezy this thread moves fast, it's impossible for me to keep up.
Don't any of you have jobs?
Of course, but shilling for the Illuminati brings in a little extra cash at the end of the month.
I can see the conspiracy boards now..
"Illuminati shill outs himself on physics board!"
Don't any of you have jobs?
Of course, but shilling for the Illuminati brings in a little extra cash at the end of the month.
I can see the conspiracy boards now..
"Illuminati shill outs himself on physics board!"
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 2 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 12:32 AM)
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...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
Where's your (or anybody's) evidence it was Muslims?
More than your evidence it's Bush...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
QUOTE
'rag-heads done it'
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 2 2006, 06:34 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 1 2006, 08:40 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 2 2006, 04:29 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 2 2006, 03:34 AM)
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
Arthur , why do you constantly bring this disinformation up? The same thing, time and time again. The only structure that could be considered a tube is the elevator shafts , a small part of the massive core.
I posted links to a few of you're own CT sites which call it a tube within a tube. The architect calls it a tube within a tube. Who are you to say it isn't?
Do some research before you post
Becouse it is not true:
tube P Pronunciation Key (t b, ty
n.
1.
a. A hollow cylinder, especially one that conveys a fluid or functions as a passage.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Tube
And you continue to post it.
My god you are dense...
They would be a tube-within-a-tube design. The exterior skin would feature columns two-feet square, spaced 4 feet 8-7/8 inches apart (possibly more), resulting in a much stronger design (5 times minimum), while permitting larger windows admitting more natural sunlight. The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/
Structural System
1 and 2 World Trade Center used the so-called tube within a tube architecture, in which closely-spaced external columns form the building's perimeter walls, and a dense bundle of columns forms its core. Tall buildings have to resist primarily two kinds of forces: lateral loading (horizontal force) due mainly to the wind, and gravity loading (downward force) due to the building's weight. The tube within a tube design uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading. The floors and hat truss completed the structure, spanning the ring of space between the perimeter wall and the core, and transmitting lateral forces between those structures.
The tube within a tube architecture was relatively new at the time the Twin Towers were built, but has since been widely employed in the design of new skyscrapers. In fact most of the world's tallest buildings use it, including:
The Sears Tower (1450 ft)
The World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft)
The Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft)
The John Hancock Center (1105 ft)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
The WTC is topical tube-in-tube structure system, whose outer tube is dense-columns-deep-beams system. The width of the column is 476.25mm while the space between columns is just 558.8mm. The thickness of beams is 1219.2mm. In order to simplify the numerical model and decrease the degree of freedom, the outer dense-columns-deep-beams tube system and inner steel truss tube system are approached with shell elements. The thickness of shell elements is established with equivalent section method. Such approximate tube has the same stiffness of global bending and axial deformation as the real structure, while the local bending stiffness of structure elements is not consisted with the real condition. Since the primary deformation of tube-in-tube structure system is global bending and axial compression deformation, this approximate method should be feasible.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
"The new skyscrapers will feature a 'tube-within-a-tube' construction," he said. "The old core was a gypsum core; the new one will be made of masonry, which will exceed the fire code."
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/media/beltonarticle.htm
Need more?
We are going to continue to call it what it is. You can continue to make yourself look stupid by saying it isn't. It's your choice...
I just learned :
The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
That how stuff works for some reason talks about FEA shell element in the WTC site:
Commen Sences quote:
The thickness of shell elements is established with equivalent section method. Such approximate tube has the same stiffness of global bending and axial deformation as the real structure, while the local bending stiffness of structure elements is not consisted with the real condition.
Howstuffworks quote:
The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
That you must make money from these sites:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
That you spam so much you don’t expect people to check your sources.
The outer structure might be considered a tube the core certainly was not.
If morons like you didn't repeatedly say stupid thing like "It's not a tube within a tube" without checking first, I wouldn't have to repeat the same post making it look like spamming.
If morons like you would read the first replay I wouldn't have to repeat the post making it look like spamming
Stop spamming your questions and I'll stop spamming the answer.
Yeah, I post the CT sites because those are the only ones you'll believe.
If you have a problem with the "Tube in a tube" descrition please send your comments it to the people who designed the building. They coined the phrase.
Because personally I don't give a fu<k. I will be calling it that from now on and reposting this as needed.
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
Arthur , why do you constantly bring this disinformation up? The same thing, time and time again. The only structure that could be considered a tube is the elevator shafts , a small part of the massive core.
I posted links to a few of you're own CT sites which call it a tube within a tube. The architect calls it a tube within a tube. Who are you to say it isn't?
Do some research before you post
Becouse it is not true:
tube P Pronunciation Key (t b, ty
n.
1.
a. A hollow cylinder, especially one that conveys a fluid or functions as a passage.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Tube
And you continue to post it.
My god you are dense...
They would be a tube-within-a-tube design. The exterior skin would feature columns two-feet square, spaced 4 feet 8-7/8 inches apart (possibly more), resulting in a much stronger design (5 times minimum), while permitting larger windows admitting more natural sunlight. The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/
Structural System
1 and 2 World Trade Center used the so-called tube within a tube architecture, in which closely-spaced external columns form the building's perimeter walls, and a dense bundle of columns forms its core. Tall buildings have to resist primarily two kinds of forces: lateral loading (horizontal force) due mainly to the wind, and gravity loading (downward force) due to the building's weight. The tube within a tube design uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading. The floors and hat truss completed the structure, spanning the ring of space between the perimeter wall and the core, and transmitting lateral forces between those structures.
The tube within a tube architecture was relatively new at the time the Twin Towers were built, but has since been widely employed in the design of new skyscrapers. In fact most of the world's tallest buildings use it, including:
The Sears Tower (1450 ft)
The World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft)
The Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft)
The John Hancock Center (1105 ft)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
The WTC is topical tube-in-tube structure system, whose outer tube is dense-columns-deep-beams system. The width of the column is 476.25mm while the space between columns is just 558.8mm. The thickness of beams is 1219.2mm. In order to simplify the numerical model and decrease the degree of freedom, the outer dense-columns-deep-beams tube system and inner steel truss tube system are approached with shell elements. The thickness of shell elements is established with equivalent section method. Such approximate tube has the same stiffness of global bending and axial deformation as the real structure, while the local bending stiffness of structure elements is not consisted with the real condition. Since the primary deformation of tube-in-tube structure system is global bending and axial compression deformation, this approximate method should be feasible.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
"The new skyscrapers will feature a 'tube-within-a-tube' construction," he said. "The old core was a gypsum core; the new one will be made of masonry, which will exceed the fire code."
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/media/beltonarticle.htm
Need more?
We are going to continue to call it what it is. You can continue to make yourself look stupid by saying it isn't. It's your choice...
I just learned :
The core would feature the same columns as the exterior skin, and its walls would be of reinforced concrete.
That how stuff works for some reason talks about FEA shell element in the WTC site:
Commen Sences quote:
The thickness of shell elements is established with equivalent section method. Such approximate tube has the same stiffness of global bending and axial deformation as the real structure, while the local bending stiffness of structure elements is not consisted with the real condition.
Howstuffworks quote:
The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
That you must make money from these sites:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
That you spam so much you don’t expect people to check your sources.
The outer structure might be considered a tube the core certainly was not.
If morons like you didn't repeatedly say stupid thing like "It's not a tube within a tube" without checking first, I wouldn't have to repeat the same post making it look like spamming.
If morons like you would read the first replay I wouldn't have to repeat the post making it look like spamming
Stop spamming your questions and I'll stop spamming the answer.
Yeah, I post the CT sites because those are the only ones you'll believe.
If you have a problem with the "Tube in a tube" descrition please send your comments it to the people who designed the building. They coined the phrase.
Because personally I don't give a fu<k. I will be calling it that from now on and reposting this as needed.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 2 2006, 06:45 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Mar 1 2006, 09:47 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 2 2006, 03:20 AM)
Remove post
I don't know, I just used the same name when I post from work.
Sorry, I thought Commen Sence / Shnobster was playing games. I apologize , I should have read your post more closely. Common Sense/ Commen Sense / Sensible /######### admits to using sock puppets.
Moron, it's not a sock puppet if you know who the person is.
I don't know, I just used the same name when I post from work.
Sorry, I thought Commen Sence / Shnobster was playing games. I apologize , I should have read your post more closely. Common Sense/ Commen Sense / Sensible /######### admits to using sock puppets.
Moron, it's not a sock puppet if you know who the person is.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 2 2006, 12:13 PM)
Check out Jones doctored photo again on section 1
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
I'd like to see the original video. Because the photo ScottS showed us was of very high resolution. I'd like to see a video of the same high resolution.
I take it you have some evidence we haven't seen which shows molten pools of metal and that the pool was tested to verify what it was? Aluminum? Steel? Because if you don't it would be you who should be ashamed.
Using bad photos/videos and layman's descriptions to draw scientific conclusions is what people should be ashamed of on a physics board.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
I'd like to see the original video. Because the photo ScottS showed us was of very high resolution. I'd like to see a video of the same high resolution.
I take it you have some evidence we haven't seen which shows molten pools of metal and that the pool was tested to verify what it was? Aluminum? Steel? Because if you don't it would be you who should be ashamed.
Using bad photos/videos and layman's descriptions to draw scientific conclusions is what people should be ashamed of on a physics board.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 2 2006, 08:13 AM)
Check out Jones doctored photo again on section 1
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Its CLEAR which one was the original.
It couldn't have come from a video, the native resolution and format don't match a video camera.
Compare this distortion by Jones to the REAL COLOR HIGH RES VERSION.
ORIGINAL
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
So if there is a MUCH BETTER ORIGINAL, why resort to this distorted image where the contrast is pumped so high every light area becomes a white blob?
Because it fits the LIE they are trying to SELL.
From the Jones paper:
WHO should be ashamed of themselves?
You, if you associate and support people like this who knowingly are tying to sell LIES.
Arthur
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Its CLEAR which one was the original.
It couldn't have come from a video, the native resolution and format don't match a video camera.
Compare this distortion by Jones to the REAL COLOR HIGH RES VERSION.
ORIGINAL
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
So if there is a MUCH BETTER ORIGINAL, why resort to this distorted image where the contrast is pumped so high every light area becomes a white blob?
Because it fits the LIE they are trying to SELL.
From the Jones paper:
QUOTE
Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure. (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.) It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites.
WHO should be ashamed of themselves?
You, if you associate and support people like this who knowingly are tying to sell LIES.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 2 2006, 02:34 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 2 2006, 08:13 AM)
Check out Jones doctored photo again on section 1
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Its CLEAR which one was the original.
It couldn't have come from a video, the native resolution and format don't match a video camera.
Compare this distortion by Jones to the REAL COLOR HIGH RES VERSION.
ORIGINAL
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
So if there is a MUCH BETTER ORIGINAL, why resort to this distorted image where the contrast is pumped so high every light area becomes a white blob?
Because it fits the LIE they are trying to SELL.
From the paper:
WHO should be ashamed of themselves?
You, if you associate and support people like this who knowingly are tying to sell LIES.
Arthur
You would think this blatant dishonesty would raise an eyebrow.
Do these con-men have no shame!!!
By definition, NO.
Arthur
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Its CLEAR which one was the original.
It couldn't have come from a video, the native resolution and format don't match a video camera.
Compare this distortion by Jones to the REAL COLOR HIGH RES VERSION.
ORIGINAL
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
So if there is a MUCH BETTER ORIGINAL, why resort to this distorted image where the contrast is pumped so high every light area becomes a white blob?
Because it fits the LIE they are trying to SELL.
From the paper:
QUOTE
Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure. (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.) It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites.
WHO should be ashamed of themselves?
You, if you associate and support people like this who knowingly are tying to sell LIES.
Arthur
You would think this blatant dishonesty would raise an eyebrow.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 2 2006, 12:13 PM)
Check out Jones doctored photo again on section 1
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Jones (or the guy who gave it to Jones) doctored the photo, and your defending him. I've shown the original photo. Even IF Jones got his version from another source he should of been able to tell how whited out his version was.
You can't tell the Jones copy has cranked up the contrast from the orginal (or OK better quality version)?
Just looking at his photo alone you can see how whited out everything is.
I've seen the video. (But if he has a super high contrast one, then no)
But here's the orginal photo again.
Nope doesn't look like Jones copy.
Jones likes the blizzard version better I guess.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Oh yes and lets forget about all of his other blatent errors, misquotes misrepresentations.
Do these con-men have no shame!!!
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Jones (or the guy who gave it to Jones) doctored the photo, and your defending him. I've shown the original photo. Even IF Jones got his version from another source he should of been able to tell how whited out his version was.
You can't tell the Jones copy has cranked up the contrast from the orginal (or OK better quality version)?
Just looking at his photo alone you can see how whited out everything is.
I've seen the video. (But if he has a super high contrast one, then no)
But here's the orginal photo again.
Nope doesn't look like Jones copy.
Jones likes the blizzard version better I guess.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Oh yes and lets forget about all of his other blatent errors, misquotes misrepresentations.
Do these con-men have no shame!!!
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 10:44 AM)
You would think this blatant dishonesty would raise an eyebrow.
Not really,
Some are just Morons like our new idiot from Norway.
(Who wonders why after a few meetings even Jones won't return his emails (can you say INBOX FILTER ))
But others are already knowingly spreading the lie.
Its one thing to ACCIDENTALLY take a quote out of context, but the BLATANT cutting of multitudes of quotes all designed to create a false picture CAN NOT be accidental.
Thus they KNOW they are LYING.
I have no idea of their motive for doing so, I'd say its roughly have ideological and half PT Barnum.
My litmus test now is the 78th floor quote (its almost out, two lines should do it) and the "Pull it" means to Blow up WTC 7 quote.
Anyone who believes, or worse is trying to convince others of those two ideas, is either too dishonest or too moronic to debate.
Arthur
Not really,
Some are just Morons like our new idiot from Norway.
(Who wonders why after a few meetings even Jones won't return his emails (can you say INBOX FILTER
))But others are already knowingly spreading the lie.
Its one thing to ACCIDENTALLY take a quote out of context, but the BLATANT cutting of multitudes of quotes all designed to create a false picture CAN NOT be accidental.
Thus they KNOW they are LYING.
I have no idea of their motive for doing so, I'd say its roughly have ideological and half PT Barnum.
My litmus test now is the 78th floor quote (its almost out, two lines should do it) and the "Pull it" means to Blow up WTC 7 quote.
Anyone who believes, or worse is trying to convince others of those two ideas, is either too dishonest or too moronic to debate.
Arthur
QUOTE (ScottS+Mar 2 2006, 10:55 AM)
Do these con-men have no shame!!!
By definition, NO.
Arthur
QUOTE (ScottS+Mar 2 2006, 02:55 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 2 2006, 12:13 PM)
Check out Jones doctored photo again on section 1
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Jones (or the guy who gave it to Jones) doctored the photo, and your defending him. I've shown the original photo.
You can't tell the Jones copy has cranked up the contrast from the orginal?
Just looking at his photo alone you can see how whited out everything is.
I've seen the video.
But here's the orginal photo again.
Nope doesn't look like Jones copy.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Oh yes and lets forget about all of his other blatent errors, misquotes misrepresentations.
Do these con-men have no shame!!!
I wonder if the original photo will be part of the evidence in the "Scholars for truth 911" paper? What do you think?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Jones (or the guy who gave it to Jones) doctored the photo, and your defending him. I've shown the original photo.
You can't tell the Jones copy has cranked up the contrast from the orginal?
Just looking at his photo alone you can see how whited out everything is.
I've seen the video.
But here's the orginal photo again.
Nope doesn't look like Jones copy.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Oh yes and lets forget about all of his other blatent errors, misquotes misrepresentations.
Do these con-men have no shame!!!
I wonder if the original photo will be part of the evidence in the "Scholars for truth 911" paper? What do you think?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 01:33 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 2 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 12:32 AM)
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...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
Where's your (or anybody's) evidence it was Muslims?
More than your evidence it's Bush...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
QUOTE
'rag-heads done it'
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 2 2006, 02:34 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 2 2006, 08:13 AM)
Check out Jones doctored photo again on section 1
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Its CLEAR which one was the original.
It couldn't have come from a video, the native resolution and format don't match a video camera.
Compare this distortion by Jones to the REAL COLOR HIGH RES VERSION.
ORIGINAL
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
So if there is a MUCH BETTER ORIGINAL, why resort to this distorted image where the contrast is pumped so high every light area becomes a white blob?
Because it fits the LIE they are trying to SELL.
From the paper:
WHO should be ashamed of themselves?
You, if you associate and support people like this who knowingly are tying to sell LIES.
Arthur
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Its CLEAR which one was the original.
It couldn't have come from a video, the native resolution and format don't match a video camera.
Compare this distortion by Jones to the REAL COLOR HIGH RES VERSION.
ORIGINAL
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
So if there is a MUCH BETTER ORIGINAL, why resort to this distorted image where the contrast is pumped so high every light area becomes a white blob?
Because it fits the LIE they are trying to SELL.
From the paper:
QUOTE
Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure. (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.) It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites.
WHO should be ashamed of themselves?
You, if you associate and support people like this who knowingly are tying to sell LIES.
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 03:04 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Mar 2 2006, 02:55 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 2 2006, 12:13 PM)
Check out Jones doctored photo again on section 1
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Jones (or the guy who gave it to Jones) doctored the photo, and your defending him. I've shown the original photo.
You can't tell the Jones copy has cranked up the contrast from the orginal?
Just looking at his photo alone you can see how whited out everything is.
I've seen the video.
But here's the orginal photo again.
Nope doesn't look like Jones copy.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Oh yes and lets forget about all of his other blatent errors, misquotes misrepresentations.
Do these con-men have no shame!!!
I wonder if the original photo will be part of the evidence in the "Scholars for truth 911" paper? What do you think?
Maybe when his paper passes peer review in a major trade journal.
Not alexjones.com
But first he has to learn how to count first.
NIST states that building 7 took 8.2 sec. to fall. Anyone can check this by starting the count as the penthouse is falling, Jones doesn't do that to keep the count as short as possible.
Jones powerpoint presentation is even more dishonest.
He says building 7 had not much smoke or visible damage. Its on slide 5.
I watched it. He really said that!!
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Jones (or the guy who gave it to Jones) doctored the photo, and your defending him. I've shown the original photo.
You can't tell the Jones copy has cranked up the contrast from the orginal?
Just looking at his photo alone you can see how whited out everything is.
I've seen the video.
But here's the orginal photo again.
Nope doesn't look like Jones copy.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Oh yes and lets forget about all of his other blatent errors, misquotes misrepresentations.
Do these con-men have no shame!!!
I wonder if the original photo will be part of the evidence in the "Scholars for truth 911" paper? What do you think?
Maybe when his paper passes peer review in a major trade journal.
Not alexjones.com
But first he has to learn how to count first.
NIST states that building 7 took 8.2 sec. to fall. Anyone can check this by starting the count as the penthouse is falling, Jones doesn't do that to keep the count as short as possible.
Jones powerpoint presentation is even more dishonest.
He says building 7 had not much smoke or visible damage. Its on slide 5.
I watched it. He really said that!!
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 2 2006, 03:04 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 01:33 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 2 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 12:32 AM)
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...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
That's because
1) I'm not Schneibster and you know it
2) I'm a proud liberal whos here because I red about this site from a liberal forum as you did
3) I don't take racist hillbilly kracker questions
4) You're a moron
5) Now Faux has to come back as mel because I bitch slapped him a few pages back
6) Go back to your hillbilly hide out with your pointy sheet heads so the guberment can do another waco on you.
I will never answer any question of yours. You will only get more of the same you racist priick.
If that is true ,why do you call people that disagree with you conspiracy theorist? Nobody has put forth anything more then "preliminary hypothesis" besides the government.
Because when you use only the evidence that swings to a conspiracy you are a conspiracy theorist.
Because you think it was the government without one shred of evidence it was. If it was blown up it still could have been terrorist. You have no evidence pointing at anyone.
Where's your (or anybody's) evidence it was Muslims?
More than your evidence it's Bush...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
QUOTE
'rag-heads done it'
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
That's because
1) I'm not Schneibster and you know it
2) I'm a proud liberal whos here because I red about this site from a liberal forum as you did
3) I don't take racist hillbilly kracker questions
4) You're a moron
5) Now Faux has to come back as mel because I bitch slapped him a few pages back
6) Go back to your hillbilly hide out with your pointy sheet heads so the guberment can do another waco on you.
I will never answer any question of yours. You will only get more of the same you racist priick.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 2 2006, 03:10 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 2 2006, 02:34 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 2 2006, 08:13 AM)
Check out Jones doctored photo again on section 1
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Its CLEAR which one was the original.
It couldn't have come from a video, the native resolution and format don't match a video camera.
Compare this distortion by Jones to the REAL COLOR HIGH RES VERSION.
ORIGINAL
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
So if there is a MUCH BETTER ORIGINAL, why resort to this distorted image where the contrast is pumped so high every light area becomes a white blob?
Because it fits the LIE they are trying to SELL.
From the paper:
WHO should be ashamed of themselves?
You, if you associate and support people like this who knowingly are tying to sell LIES.
Arthur
You would think this blatant dishonesty would raise an eyebrow.
You mean like this, Schneibster?
No, like this Foxx
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...300&#entry68826
You have me confused with Schneibster. (Which is an honor since anyone who follows your links would see you're being just as dishonest as Jones and Hoffman about him.) I wont be to hard on you though... What's that new term to discribe your condition? "The Synaptically Challenged"?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
I guess the original wasn't good enough so Jones needed to "tweak" the white "blobs".
Turning it into a high contrast blizzard from the orginal.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Why do you say that this photograph is the original?
Would you like to see the video original from which it actually did come?
No pools of metal? No soldified pieces of previously molten metal?
Only streams pouring from the side of the building.
For a physics forum you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gordon.
Its CLEAR which one was the original.
It couldn't have come from a video, the native resolution and format don't match a video camera.
Compare this distortion by Jones to the REAL COLOR HIGH RES VERSION.
ORIGINAL
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
So if there is a MUCH BETTER ORIGINAL, why resort to this distorted image where the contrast is pumped so high every light area becomes a white blob?
Because it fits the LIE they are trying to SELL.
From the paper:
QUOTE
Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure. (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.) It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites.
WHO should be ashamed of themselves?
You, if you associate and support people like this who knowingly are tying to sell LIES.
Arthur
You would think this blatant dishonesty would raise an eyebrow.
You mean like this, Schneibster?
No, like this Foxx
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...300&#entry68826
You have me confused with Schneibster. (Which is an honor since anyone who follows your links would see you're being just as dishonest as Jones and Hoffman about him.) I wont be to hard on you though... What's that new term to discribe your condition? "The Synaptically Challenged"?
QUOTE (ScottS+Mar 2 2006, 03:12 PM)
Jones powerpoint presentation is even more dishonest.
I watched it.
Sorry to hear that, sounds painfull.
I watched it.
Sorry to hear that, sounds painfull.
I'm wondering if Jones will ever get that trash published even in an Economics Journal.
The inclusion of blatent lies, distortions etc is astounding and the ease at which they are exposed has to make ANY publisher think twice about the impact to their reputation for publishing that collection of garbage.
I bet BYU has a dozen lawyers trying to find some loophole in their Tenure rules.
Arthur
The inclusion of blatent lies, distortions etc is astounding and the ease at which they are exposed has to make ANY publisher think twice about the impact to their reputation for publishing that collection of garbage.
I bet BYU has a dozen lawyers trying to find some loophole in their Tenure rules.
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 03:13 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 2 2006, 03:04 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 01:33 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 2 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 12:32 AM)
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...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
That's because
1) I'm not Schneibster and you know it
2) I'm a proud liberal whos here because I red about this site from a liberal forum as you did
3) I don't take racist hillbilly kracker questions
4) You're a moron
5) Now Faux has to come back as mel because I bitch slapped him a few pages back
6) Go back to your hillbilly hide out with your pointy sheet heads so the guberment can do another waco on you.
I will never answer any question of yours. You will only get more of the same you racist priick.
Chuckle.
Defeated again Schneibster...sucks to be you.
By your own admission, there is no verifiable evidence that Arab hijackers caused the collapse of the WTC buildings, so...
Provide documented proof as to how WTC 1, 2 and 7 progressively collapsed. Failure to provide such evidence constitutes complete admission on your part that no such proof exists.
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...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
QUOTE
'rag-heads done it'
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
That's because
1) I'm not Schneibster and you know it
2) I'm a proud liberal whos here because I red about this site from a liberal forum as you did
3) I don't take racist hillbilly kracker questions
4) You're a moron
5) Now Faux has to come back as mel because I bitch slapped him a few pages back
6) Go back to your hillbilly hide out with your pointy sheet heads so the guberment can do another waco on you.
I will never answer any question of yours. You will only get more of the same you racist priick.
Chuckle.
Defeated again Schneibster...sucks to be you.
By your own admission, there is no verifiable evidence that Arab hijackers caused the collapse of the WTC buildings, so...
Provide documented proof as to how WTC 1, 2 and 7 progressively collapsed. Failure to provide such evidence constitutes complete admission on your part that no such proof exists.
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 2 2006, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 03:13 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 2 2006, 03:04 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 01:33 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 2 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 12:32 AM)
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...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
That's because
1) I'm not Schneibster and you know it
2) I'm a proud liberal whos here because I red about this site from a liberal forum as you did
3) I don't take racist hillbilly kracker questions
4) You're a moron
5) Now Faux has to come back as mel because I bitch slapped him a few pages back
6) Go back to your hillbilly hide out with your pointy sheet heads so the guberment can do another waco on you.
I will never answer any question of yours. You will only get more of the same you racist priick.
Chuckle.
Defeated again Schneibster...sucks to be you.
By your own admission, there is no verifiable evidence that Arab hijackers caused the collapse of the WTC buildings, so...
Provide documented proof as to how WTC 1, 2 and 7 progressively collapsed. Failure to provide such evidence constitutes complete admission on your part that no such proof exists.
Experiment:
After computer class, go home and hook your home to your pickup. (Be carefull not to disturb your mother with her "Special friend")
Drive said pickup/home to the highest point in your village. Drive fast enough to over the curb to clear the cliff. Time that against your free fall times. Note that the buildings fell far slower that you, your mother and her special friend in the trailer.
Disclamer: This is only a joke and should not be attemped Faux/Mel.
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...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
QUOTE
'rag-heads done it'
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
That's because
1) I'm not Schneibster and you know it
2) I'm a proud liberal whos here because I red about this site from a liberal forum as you did
3) I don't take racist hillbilly kracker questions
4) You're a moron
5) Now Faux has to come back as mel because I bitch slapped him a few pages back
6) Go back to your hillbilly hide out with your pointy sheet heads so the guberment can do another waco on you.
I will never answer any question of yours. You will only get more of the same you racist priick.
Chuckle.
Defeated again Schneibster...sucks to be you.
By your own admission, there is no verifiable evidence that Arab hijackers caused the collapse of the WTC buildings, so...
Provide documented proof as to how WTC 1, 2 and 7 progressively collapsed. Failure to provide such evidence constitutes complete admission on your part that no such proof exists.
Experiment:
After computer class, go home and hook your home to your pickup. (Be carefull not to disturb your mother with her "Special friend")
Drive said pickup/home to the highest point in your village. Drive fast enough to over the curb to clear the cliff. Time that against your free fall times. Note that the buildings fell far slower that you, your mother and her special friend in the trailer.
Disclamer: This is only a joke and should not be attemped Faux/Mel.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 04:14 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 2 2006, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 03:13 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 2 2006, 03:04 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 01:33 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 2 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 12:32 AM)
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...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
That's because
1) I'm not Schneibster and you know it
2) I'm a proud liberal whos here because I red about this site from a liberal forum as you did
3) I don't take racist hillbilly kracker questions
4) You're a moron
5) Now Faux has to come back as mel because I bitch slapped him a few pages back
6) Go back to your hillbilly hide out with your pointy sheet heads so the guberment can do another waco on you.
I will never answer any question of yours. You will only get more of the same you racist priick.
Chuckle.
Defeated again Schneibster...sucks to be you.
By your own admission, there is no verifiable evidence that Arab hijackers caused the collapse of the WTC buildings, so...
Provide documented proof as to how WTC 1, 2 and 7 progressively collapsed. Failure to provide such evidence constitutes complete admission on your part that no such proof exists.
Experiment:
After computer class, go home and hook your home to your pickup. (Be carefull not to disturb your mother with her "Special friend")
Drive said pickup/home to the highest point in your village. Drive fast enough to over the curb to clear the cliff. Time that against your free fall times. Note that the buildings fell far slower that you, your mother and her special friend in the trailer.
Disclamer: This is only a joke and should not be attemped Faux/Mel.
Admissions by Schneibster (thus far):
1. There is no evidence that Arabs had anything to do with 9/11.
2. There is no proof that WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 could 'progressively and disproportionately' collapse.
All this time you and your ilk spend in this forum, and you got nothin'. Double-sucks to be you.
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...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
QUOTE
'rag-heads done it'
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
That's because
1) I'm not Schneibster and you know it
2) I'm a proud liberal whos here because I red about this site from a liberal forum as you did
3) I don't take racist hillbilly kracker questions
4) You're a moron
5) Now Faux has to come back as mel because I bitch slapped him a few pages back
6) Go back to your hillbilly hide out with your pointy sheet heads so the guberment can do another waco on you.
I will never answer any question of yours. You will only get more of the same you racist priick.
Chuckle.
Defeated again Schneibster...sucks to be you.
By your own admission, there is no verifiable evidence that Arab hijackers caused the collapse of the WTC buildings, so...
Provide documented proof as to how WTC 1, 2 and 7 progressively collapsed. Failure to provide such evidence constitutes complete admission on your part that no such proof exists.
Experiment:
After computer class, go home and hook your home to your pickup. (Be carefull not to disturb your mother with her "Special friend")
Drive said pickup/home to the highest point in your village. Drive fast enough to over the curb to clear the cliff. Time that against your free fall times. Note that the buildings fell far slower that you, your mother and her special friend in the trailer.
Disclamer: This is only a joke and should not be attemped Faux/Mel.
Admissions by Schneibster (thus far):
1. There is no evidence that Arabs had anything to do with 9/11.
2. There is no proof that WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 could 'progressively and disproportionately' collapse.
All this time you and your ilk spend in this forum, and you got nothin'. Double-sucks to be you.
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 2 2006, 12:04 PM)
By your own admission, there is no verifiable evidence that Arab hijackers caused the collapse of the WTC buildings, so...
Provide documented proof as to how WTC 1, 2 and 7 progressively collapsed. Failure to provide such evidence constitutes complete admission on your part that no such proof exists.
Mel,
In case you hadn't noticed, this is a PHYSICS forum.
WHO hijacked the planes is not a PHYSICS issue.
There are PLENTY of places where you can debate the POLITICS, just not here.
So, no one has ADMITTED anything, they are simply ignoring your childish taunts.
As to your second point.
The NIST report is a good starting point for the initiation of the collapse.
To my knowledge no one has "documented proof" as to EXACTLY how the the buildings collapsed after collapse initiation. Given what it took to model the towers behavior from aircraft impact until local collapse it is unlikely that anyone COULD provide the "documented proof" you are asking for.
On the otherhand, no REPUTABLE engineering firm or architectural firm or other NIST type organization in, oh say Europe or the Middle East or Asia, has REFUTED the statement that NIST made explaining that the global collapse was inevitable once the LOCAL COLLAPSE which they EXTENSIVELY DOCUMENTED had begun.
That was first published over 1 year ago in the Prelimnary report and then published 6 months ago in the Final report.
So, UNTIL the above DOES occur, their statement remains unchallenged by anyone with the credentials to do so.
Arthur
Provide documented proof as to how WTC 1, 2 and 7 progressively collapsed. Failure to provide such evidence constitutes complete admission on your part that no such proof exists.
Mel,
In case you hadn't noticed, this is a PHYSICS forum.
WHO hijacked the planes is not a PHYSICS issue.
There are PLENTY of places where you can debate the POLITICS, just not here.
So, no one has ADMITTED anything, they are simply ignoring your childish taunts.
As to your second point.
The NIST report is a good starting point for the initiation of the collapse.
To my knowledge no one has "documented proof" as to EXACTLY how the the buildings collapsed after collapse initiation. Given what it took to model the towers behavior from aircraft impact until local collapse it is unlikely that anyone COULD provide the "documented proof" you are asking for.
On the otherhand, no REPUTABLE engineering firm or architectural firm or other NIST type organization in, oh say Europe or the Middle East or Asia, has REFUTED the statement that NIST made explaining that the global collapse was inevitable once the LOCAL COLLAPSE which they EXTENSIVELY DOCUMENTED had begun.
That was first published over 1 year ago in the Prelimnary report and then published 6 months ago in the Final report.
So, UNTIL the above DOES occur, their statement remains unchallenged by anyone with the credentials to do so.
Arthur
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 2 2006, 04:25 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 04:14 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 2 2006, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 03:13 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 2 2006, 03:04 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 01:33 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 2 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 2 2006, 12:32 AM)
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...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
That's because
1) I'm not Schneibster and you know it
2) I'm a proud liberal whos here because I red about this site from a liberal forum as you did
3) I don't take racist hillbilly kracker questions
4) You're a moron
5) Now Faux has to come back as mel because I bitch slapped him a few pages back
6) Go back to your hillbilly hide out with your pointy sheet heads so the guberment can do another waco on you.
I will never answer any question of yours. You will only get more of the same you racist priick.
Chuckle.
Defeated again Schneibster...sucks to be you.
By your own admission, there is no verifiable evidence that Arab hijackers caused the collapse of the WTC buildings, so...
Provide documented proof as to how WTC 1, 2 and 7 progressively collapsed. Failure to provide such evidence constitutes complete admission on your part that no such proof exists.
Experiment:
After computer class, go home and hook your home to your pickup. (Be carefull not to disturb your mother with her "Special friend")
Drive said pickup/home to the highest point in your village. Drive fast enough to over the curb to clear the cliff. Time that against your free fall times. Note that the buildings fell far slower that you, your mother and her special friend in the trailer.
Disclamer: This is only a joke and should not be attemped Faux/Mel.
Admissions by Schneibster (thus far):
1. There is no evidence that Arabs had anything to do with 9/11.
2. There is no proof that WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 could 'progressively and disproportionately' collapse.
All this time you and your ilk spend in this forum, and you got nothin'. Double-sucks to be you.
More dishonesty by the conspiracy theorist.
1) I'm not Schneibster
2) Your not Mel
3) I didn't answer your question and never will because you're a racist turd
4) 4 years of being on this forum and you haven't converted a single member to your side. PATHETIC!
5) All anyone has to do is read my posts to know faux/Mel is a liar.
This is gonna be fun.
Mel ->
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...
Who said it was Bush?
And you evaded the original question, so I again offer you the opportunity to post verifiable, non-circumstantial evidence that 'rag-heads done it'. Failure to do so will constitute a complete admission on your part that no such evidence exists.
When I see an honest question I answer honestly. I have answered that question already many times.
I can play the same game. I never said it was the muslims.
QUOTE
'rag-heads done it'
Do you have evidence it was the gooburment 'krackers' that did it?
You racist btich a$$. Don't you have to change the tires on your house of something?
'Rag-heads'? Just quoting Ms. Coulter (she's a player on your team...you may have heard of her).
You have answered the (pardon my original error) 'Eh-rabs done it' question exactly 0 (zero) times, Schneibster.
And you just answered it again for the zero-ith time. This constitutes a full admission on your part that there is no evidence.
That's because
1) I'm not Schneibster and you know it
2) I'm a proud liberal whos here because I red about this site from a liberal forum as you did
3) I don't take racist hillbilly kracker questions
4) You're a moron
5) Now Faux has to come back as mel because I bitch slapped him a few pages back
6) Go back to your hillbilly hide out with your pointy sheet heads so the guberment can do another waco on you.
I will never answer any question of yours. You will only get more of the same you racist priick.
Chuckle.
Defeated again Schneibster...sucks to be you.
By your own admission, there is no verifiable evidence that Arab hijackers caused the collapse of the WTC buildings, so...
Provide documented proof as to how WTC 1, 2 and 7 progressively collapsed. Failure to provide such evidence constitutes complete admission on your part that no such proof exists.
Experiment:
After computer class, go home and hook your home to your pickup. (Be carefull not to disturb your mother with her "Special friend")
Drive said pickup/home to the highest point in your village. Drive fast enough to over the curb to clear the cliff. Time that against your free fall times. Note that the buildings fell far slower that you, your mother and her special friend in the trailer.
Disclamer: This is only a joke and should not be attemped Faux/Mel.
Admissions by Schneibster (thus far):
1. There is no evidence that Arabs had anything to do with 9/11.
2. There is no proof that WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 could 'progressively and disproportionately' collapse.
All this time you and your ilk spend in this forum, and you got nothin'. Double-sucks to be you.
More dishonesty by the conspiracy theorist.
1) I'm not Schneibster
2) Your not Mel
3) I didn't answer your question and never will because you're a racist turd
4) 4 years of being on this forum and you haven't converted a single member to your side. PATHETIC!
5) All anyone has to do is read my posts to know faux/Mel is a liar.
This is gonna be fun.
Mel ->
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 2 2006, 04:04 PM)
I'm wondering if Jones will ever get that trash published even in an Economics Journal.
The inclusion of blatent lies, distortions etc is astounding and the ease at which they are exposed has to make ANY publisher think twice about the impact to their reputation for publishing that collection of garbage.
I bet BYU has a dozen lawyers trying to find some loophole in their Tenure rules.
Arthur
I think Jones paper would be a great tool of what NOT to do in a high school class setting.
Kids could learn about how misquotations and misrepresentations can get you in trouble.
They can learn proper methodology. Learn why you should always try to get primary information, and interview your sources if you can.
Remember kids it always pays to be honest.
The inclusion of blatent lies, distortions etc is astounding and the ease at which they are exposed has to make ANY publisher think twice about the impact to their reputation for publishing that collection of garbage.
I bet BYU has a dozen lawyers trying to find some loophole in their Tenure rules.
Arthur
I think Jones paper would be a great tool of what NOT to do in a high school class setting.
Kids could learn about how misquotations and misrepresentations can get you in trouble.
They can learn proper methodology. Learn why you should always try to get primary information, and interview your sources if you can.
Remember kids it always pays to be honest.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 2 2006, 04:04 PM)
I bet BYU has a dozen lawyers trying to find some loophole in their Tenure rules.
Arthur
I don't know about that. I think misinformed stary eyed kids might be trying to get into BYU just because thier hero is there. This may be the most attention that school has gotten in a long time. From a PR POV it seems great for BYU. Though pooling that type of student in one place seems like a bad idea in the end.
Arthur
I don't know about that. I think misinformed stary eyed kids might be trying to get into BYU just because thier hero is there. This may be the most attention that school has gotten in a long time. From a PR POV it seems great for BYU. Though pooling that type of student in one place seems like a bad idea in the end.
Given that the Scholars for Truth are going to great lengths to gain acces to evidence that the government went to great lengths (illegal) to make sure no one could gain acces to, it appears to be a simple judgement as to who is interested in the truth of the matter eh.
As much as I distrust Zymanskis method of reporting his suggestion seems one of the best ways forward. Then even if the perpatrators are still at large the world will know that -
""It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
-
Less Talk and More Action Needed To Get Justice For Mass Murder 9/11 Victims
Enough evidence has been compiled to show beyond a reasonable doubt the government was complicit in 9/11. What's needed is to bypass mainstream media and government, going to a worldwide public forum to get the truth presented in a credible way to the American people.---
http://www.arcticbeacon.com./1-Mar-2006.html
As much as I distrust Zymanskis method of reporting his suggestion seems one of the best ways forward. Then even if the perpatrators are still at large the world will know that -
""It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
-
Less Talk and More Action Needed To Get Justice For Mass Murder 9/11 Victims
Enough evidence has been compiled to show beyond a reasonable doubt the government was complicit in 9/11. What's needed is to bypass mainstream media and government, going to a worldwide public forum to get the truth presented in a credible way to the American people.---
http://www.arcticbeacon.com./1-Mar-2006.html
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
And these are supposedly pictures of a building critically compromised by fire?
As we say over here - it would make a cat laugh.
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
And these are supposedly pictures of a building critically compromised by fire?
As we say over here - it would make a cat laugh.
QUOTE (brian+Mar 2 2006, 02:11 PM)
And these are supposedly pictures of a building critically compromised by fire?
As we say over here - it would make a cat laugh.
No Brian,
The GOOD pictures would have been taken from the FRONT of the building, all you get here is the back and sides. It was a tad difficult to get to the front of the building that day though.
The firefighter testimony gives a better idea of how bad the fires were.
Still, I don't think this building's collapse was anything like the WTC 1&2 collapse.
I do think this will turn out to be a combination of a poor design (or actually a poor redesign to handle an expansion) that created a single point of failure that led to a (dare I say it) Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse. Check out the building structure and you can see the area under the Kink as the obvious suspect.
In any case this is just my guess, I'm not a structural engineer so I'm waiting for the eventual NIST report. They do say they plan on modeling the collapse of that building.
WTC 1&2 collapse was not disproportionate to the damage and fires they sustained, but NIST believes that WTC 7 was.
Arthur
As we say over here - it would make a cat laugh.
No Brian,
The GOOD pictures would have been taken from the FRONT of the building, all you get here is the back and sides. It was a tad difficult to get to the front of the building that day though.
The firefighter testimony gives a better idea of how bad the fires were.
Still, I don't think this building's collapse was anything like the WTC 1&2 collapse.
I do think this will turn out to be a combination of a poor design (or actually a poor redesign to handle an expansion) that created a single point of failure that led to a (dare I say it) Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse. Check out the building structure and you can see the area under the Kink as the obvious suspect.
In any case this is just my guess, I'm not a structural engineer so I'm waiting for the eventual NIST report. They do say they plan on modeling the collapse of that building.
WTC 1&2 collapse was not disproportionate to the damage and fires they sustained, but NIST believes that WTC 7 was.
Arthur
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 case Brian forgets again.
I already posted some photos and videos.
Below is the post where Brian sticks his foot in his mouth.
Also see http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
Brian see what happens when you use Jones/Griffin as a source.
You were suckered by con-artists.
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 case Brian forgets again.
I already posted some photos and videos.
Below is the post where Brian sticks his foot in his mouth.
Also see http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
Brian see what happens when you use Jones/Griffin as a source.
You were suckered by con-artists.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 2 2006, 06:51 PM)
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?
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?