QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 08:04 AM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 4 2006, 07:50 AM)
Now I suppose that it will be claimed that the core of WTC2 is what is being seen but that it is exactly blocking the view of One Liberty Plaza which should be seen in the background. 
I'll post the same image I've been posting that shows the WTC 2 core, and the next in the series where the top is lower.
It looks to me as if the lower image is over-exposed - thus masking the Hilton and 1 Liberty Plaza.
We know there are other large buildings behind - so the reason we cannot see them must be because the image is not really representing reality.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything - just stating the facts as they appear to me.
(: hereward
I'll post the same image I've been posting that shows the WTC 2 core, and the next in the series where the top is lower.
It looks to me as if the lower image is over-exposed - thus masking the Hilton and 1 Liberty Plaza.
We know there are other large buildings behind - so the reason we cannot see them must be because the image is not really representing reality.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything - just stating the facts as they appear to me.
(: hereward
It's over exposed and there's also white smoke. You can see the white smoke (or light colored smoke in an overexposed pic) parly hiding a building on the right of the pic.
Here's two pics from nearly the same perspective. I think they were taken by the same photographer. Note the foreground object.
The two structures, Liberty One and what apparently was left of WTC2 briefly, don't match up. Liberty One was actually within view of the pic with the dust but was blocked completely by the dust. The other structure apparently is a remnant of WTC2 that briefly stood.
If anyone has other explanations, I'm open to suggestions.
Anyone have a video from this angle?
(If that dark building isn't Liberty, then it's probably the Hilton; either way, it doesn't match up with that structure near the end of the collapse).
The two structures, Liberty One and what apparently was left of WTC2 briefly, don't match up. Liberty One was actually within view of the pic with the dust but was blocked completely by the dust. The other structure apparently is a remnant of WTC2 that briefly stood.
If anyone has other explanations, I'm open to suggestions.
Anyone have a video from this angle?
(If that dark building isn't Liberty, then it's probably the Hilton; either way, it doesn't match up with that structure near the end of the collapse).
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 4 2006, 12:59 PM)
Here's two pics from nearly the same perspective. I think they were taken by the same photographer. Note the foreground object.
The two structures, Liberty One and what apparently was left of WTC2 briefly, don't match up. Liberty One was actually within view of the pic with the dust but was blocked completely by the dust. The other structure apparently is a remnant of WTC2 that briefly stood.
If anyone has other explanations, I'm open to suggestions.
Anyone have a video from this angle?
I think these images deminstrate how difficult it is to prove anything with photographic evidence, or on the other hand, how you can use photo evidence to prove almost anything, providing you have lots of photos with different zoom and exposure setting etc...
I don't think trying to match up sizes and positions is going to work here. Look at the top image, and then look at the bottom image... how do you explain the discrepancy?
(: hereward
The two structures, Liberty One and what apparently was left of WTC2 briefly, don't match up. Liberty One was actually within view of the pic with the dust but was blocked completely by the dust. The other structure apparently is a remnant of WTC2 that briefly stood.
If anyone has other explanations, I'm open to suggestions.
Anyone have a video from this angle?
I think these images deminstrate how difficult it is to prove anything with photographic evidence, or on the other hand, how you can use photo evidence to prove almost anything, providing you have lots of photos with different zoom and exposure setting etc...
I don't think trying to match up sizes and positions is going to work here. Look at the top image, and then look at the bottom image... how do you explain the discrepancy?
(: hereward
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 2 2006, 06:41 AM)
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
Unless they do an analysis themselves, how could they possibly prove NIST's hand-waiving statement wrong? All they could say is, "Well, our hand-waiving disagrees with your hand-waiving. So you're wrong, and we're right."
NIST's intuition is no more falsifiable than anybody else's.*
And this is also ignoring all the evidence (much of it extraordinary) and phenomena which NIST just ignored, which clearly points away from the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale.
* I suppose it is in one sense - if you could hook them up to lie detectors to see if they even believed their own tripe - you could falsify their intuition in this way. I.e., by proving that it wasn't even that, and instead was just a bald-faced lie.
You know, like their BIG LIE that
NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found
I don't think trying to match up sizes and positions is going to work here. Look at the top image, and then look at the bottom image... how do you explain the discrepancy?
(: hereward
The top pic was a view from slightly north of the other two and is an aerial pic. Look at the lower two pics. They were taken from the same perspective. Note the foreground and the two flags on that structure in the park at the bottom of the pics.
The first pic was the best I could find at that moment but the perspective wasn't the same.
The 2nd and 3rd pics are part of a 52-pic sequence, apparently taken by the same photographer.
"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
Unless they do an analysis themselves, how could they possibly prove NIST's hand-waiving statement wrong? All they could say is, "Well, our hand-waiving disagrees with your hand-waiving. So you're wrong, and we're right."
NIST's intuition is no more falsifiable than anybody else's.*
And this is also ignoring all the evidence (much of it extraordinary) and phenomena which NIST just ignored, which clearly points away from the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale.
* I suppose it is in one sense - if you could hook them up to lie detectors to see if they even believed their own tripe - you could falsify their intuition in this way. I.e., by proving that it wasn't even that, and instead was just a bald-faced lie.
You know, like their BIG LIE that
QUOTE
NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 4 2006, 01:42 PM)
I don't think trying to match up sizes and positions is going to work here. Look at the top image, and then look at the bottom image... how do you explain the discrepancy?
(: hereward
The top pic was a view from slightly north of the other two and is an aerial pic. Look at the lower two pics. They were taken from the same perspective. Note the foreground and the two flags on that structure in the park at the bottom of the pics.
The first pic was the best I could find at that moment but the perspective wasn't the same.
The 2nd and 3rd pics are part of a 52-pic sequence, apparently taken by the same photographer.
Average of the two pics:
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 03:37 AM)
Hi all.
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
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
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"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".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive ) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors.
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
QUOTE
originally posted by Christophera
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| originally posted by Christophera No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground. |
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
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
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
QUOTE
... 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.
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... 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. |
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"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".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive
) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 02:06 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 2 2006, 06:41 AM)
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
Unless they do an analysis themselves, how could they possibly prove NIST's hand-waiving statement wrong? All they could say is, "Well, our hand-waiving disagrees with your hand-waiving. So you're wrong, and we're right."
NIST's intuition is no more falsifiable than anybody else's.*
And this is also ignoring all the evidence (much of it extraordinary) and phenomena which NIST just ignored, which clearly points away from the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale.
* I suppose it is in one sense - if you could hook them up to lie detectors to see if they even believed their own tripe - you could falsify their intuition in this way. I.e., by proving that it wasn't even that, and instead was just a bald-faced lie.
You know, like their BIG LIE that
NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found
They could easily replicate the controlled experiments and the computer modeling. It seems the only hand waving here is being done by you. "No I can't replicate the experiments!"
"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
Unless they do an analysis themselves, how could they possibly prove NIST's hand-waiving statement wrong? All they could say is, "Well, our hand-waiving disagrees with your hand-waiving. So you're wrong, and we're right."
NIST's intuition is no more falsifiable than anybody else's.*
And this is also ignoring all the evidence (much of it extraordinary) and phenomena which NIST just ignored, which clearly points away from the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale.
* I suppose it is in one sense - if you could hook them up to lie detectors to see if they even believed their own tripe - you could falsify their intuition in this way. I.e., by proving that it wasn't even that, and instead was just a bald-faced lie.
You know, like their BIG LIE that
QUOTE
NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found
They could easily replicate the controlled experiments and the computer modeling. It seems the only hand waving here is being done by you. "No I can't replicate the experiments!"
Can anyone find a source that pre-dates 9/11 stating that a Steel and gypsum or drywall only system was used for the core? It should be well documented.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 02:35 PM)
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive ) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors.
In other words scholars for truth, headed by the great PROFESSOR JONES is to stupid to figure out what us, erum... "popes" on a internet foum easily point out.
If you guys need this forum to help your "paper" then it's in worse trouble than I thought...
And if FAUX has something to do with it then it's laughable. You might as well tell him never to finish since he hasn't been right about anything thing yet. Heh!
) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors. In other words scholars for truth, headed by the great PROFESSOR JONES is to stupid to figure out what us, erum... "popes" on a internet foum easily point out.
If you guys need this forum to help your "paper" then it's in worse trouble than I thought...
And if FAUX has something to do with it then it's laughable. You might as well tell him never to finish since he hasn't been right about anything thing yet. Heh!
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 4 2006, 09:42 AM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 4 2006, 12:59 PM)
Here's two pics from nearly the same perspective. I think they were taken by the same photographer. Note the foreground object.
The two structures, Liberty One and what apparently was left of WTC2 briefly, don't match up. Liberty One was actually within view of the pic with the dust but was blocked completely by the dust. The other structure apparently is a remnant of WTC2 that briefly stood.
If anyone has other explanations, I'm open to suggestions.
Anyone have a video from this angle?
I think these images deminstrate how difficult it is to prove anything with photographic evidence, or on the other hand, how you can use photo evidence to prove almost anything, providing you have lots of photos with different zoom and exposure setting etc...
I don't think trying to match up sizes and positions is going to work here. Look at the top image, and then look at the bottom image... how do you explain the discrepancy?
(: hereward
I think you CAN tell that the object is the WTC.
Has to do with perspective and relative sizes.
For this discussion, Right and Left are in relationship to someone TAKING the pictures.
Note the relationship between the two towers in the first picture.
No matter WHAT angle you take a picture from this relationship is FIXED.
Now if you look at the WTC 1 Tower in both pictures you can determine:
The scale of the top WTC is slightly larger
The angle of the picture in the top WTC is more perpendicular to the face, thus making the ratio of the RIGHT side to the FACE smaller.
Which means that the 2nd photograph was taken from a position to the RIGHT of the first .i.e camera moves ==>
This would make the right side of the WTC 2 tower also close the gap to the large building in the right foreground.
It would also close the Gap between the two towers.
Playing around with a little parallel lines between the two pictures (which I can't reproduce but you can by printing out the pictures) I find that the projected Right side of the WTC 2 tower matches the right side of the "core".
Try it.
Arthur
The two structures, Liberty One and what apparently was left of WTC2 briefly, don't match up. Liberty One was actually within view of the pic with the dust but was blocked completely by the dust. The other structure apparently is a remnant of WTC2 that briefly stood.
If anyone has other explanations, I'm open to suggestions.
Anyone have a video from this angle?
I think these images deminstrate how difficult it is to prove anything with photographic evidence, or on the other hand, how you can use photo evidence to prove almost anything, providing you have lots of photos with different zoom and exposure setting etc...
I don't think trying to match up sizes and positions is going to work here. Look at the top image, and then look at the bottom image... how do you explain the discrepancy?
(: hereward
I think you CAN tell that the object is the WTC.
Has to do with perspective and relative sizes.
For this discussion, Right and Left are in relationship to someone TAKING the pictures.
Note the relationship between the two towers in the first picture.
No matter WHAT angle you take a picture from this relationship is FIXED.
Now if you look at the WTC 1 Tower in both pictures you can determine:
The scale of the top WTC is slightly larger
The angle of the picture in the top WTC is more perpendicular to the face, thus making the ratio of the RIGHT side to the FACE smaller.
Which means that the 2nd photograph was taken from a position to the RIGHT of the first .i.e camera moves ==>
This would make the right side of the WTC 2 tower also close the gap to the large building in the right foreground.
It would also close the Gap between the two towers.
Playing around with a little parallel lines between the two pictures (which I can't reproduce but you can by printing out the pictures) I find that the projected Right side of the WTC 2 tower matches the right side of the "core".
Try it.
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 02:35 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 03:37 AM)
Hi all.
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
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
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"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".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive ) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors.
In other words scholars for truth, headed by the great PROFESSOR JONES is to stupid to figure out what us, erum... "popes" easily point out.
If you guys need this forum to help your "paper" then it's in worse trouble than I thought...
As usual, you distorted what I wrote.
To put it plainly: you and just about every other pope have poor "signal to noise" ratios. * But some criticisms that a laymen might make (and a scientist wouldn't) might be worth adressing.
Furthermore, some of the criticisms raised by the popes are actually excellent points, and therefore useful at arriving at the truth.
You have one of the worst "signal to noise" ratios, and would do well to change your name to "Spam-a-lot". However, even you may have managed to post something worth reading.
BTW, how much physics have you ever studied in your life? IIRC, most Americans don't even take 1 high school course in physics, and I certainly get the impression that you are like most Americans, in this regard.
* Schneibster would likely be the exception, if we ignored his insulting, anyway.
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
QUOTE
originally posted by Christophera
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| originally posted by Christophera No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground. |
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
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
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
QUOTE
... 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.
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... 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. |
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"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".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive
) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors. In other words scholars for truth, headed by the great PROFESSOR JONES is to stupid to figure out what us, erum... "popes" easily point out.
If you guys need this forum to help your "paper" then it's in worse trouble than I thought...
As usual, you distorted what I wrote.
To put it plainly: you and just about every other pope have poor "signal to noise" ratios. * But some criticisms that a laymen might make (and a scientist wouldn't) might be worth adressing.
Furthermore, some of the criticisms raised by the popes are actually excellent points, and therefore useful at arriving at the truth.
You have one of the worst "signal to noise" ratios, and would do well to change your name to "Spam-a-lot".
However, even you may have managed to post something worth reading.BTW, how much physics have you ever studied in your life? IIRC, most Americans don't even take 1 high school course in physics, and I certainly get the impression that you are like most Americans, in this regard.
* Schneibster would likely be the exception, if we ignored his insulting, anyway.
Average of two pics:
I suppose it would be kind of wild to claim that the vertical structure thing was a vertical dust plume. It's possible but it looks too well defined and matches up with the southern side of WTC2 before the collapse.
Also, in the next pic in that photographer's sequence, the structure is gone, as if it collapsed in a few seconds. There wasn't much time between shots, as the dust plumes around the ground didn't change much. It's difficult to see how a vertical plume would change so suddenly and disappear or lose its shape that quickly.
Also, in the next pic in that photographer's sequence, the structure is gone, as if it collapsed in a few seconds. There wasn't much time between shots, as the dust plumes around the ground didn't change much. It's difficult to see how a vertical plume would change so suddenly and disappear or lose its shape that quickly.
To the left of the vertical plume structure thingy, it almost looks like there is a rectangular piece of one of those criss-cross spire things falling off. It may be artifact in the pic, but it is sort of reminiscent of the spire-like structure seen at the end of the WTC1 collapse. Maybe it's just dust.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2006, 03:03 PM)
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 4 2006, 09:42 AM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 4 2006, 12:59 PM)
Here's two pics from nearly the same perspective. I think they were taken by the same photographer. Note the foreground object.
The two structures, Liberty One and what apparently was left of WTC2 briefly, don't match up. Liberty One was actually within view of the pic with the dust but was blocked completely by the dust. The other structure apparently is a remnant of WTC2 that briefly stood.
If anyone has other explanations, I'm open to suggestions.
Anyone have a video from this angle?
I think these images deminstrate how difficult it is to prove anything with photographic evidence, or on the other hand, how you can use photo evidence to prove almost anything, providing you have lots of photos with different zoom and exposure setting etc...
I don't think trying to match up sizes and positions is going to work here. Look at the top image, and then look at the bottom image... how do you explain the discrepancy?
(: hereward
I think you CAN tell that the object is the WTC.
Has to do with perspective and relative sizes.
For this discussion, Right and Left are in relationship to someone TAKING the pictures.
Note the relationship between the two towers in the first picture.
No matter WHAT angle you take a picture from this relationship is FIXED.
Now if you look at the WTC 1 Tower in both pictures you can determine:
The scale of the top WTC is slightly larger
The angle of the picture in the top WTC is more perpendicular to the face, thus making the ratio of the RIGHT side to the FACE smaller.
Which means that the 2nd photograph was taken from a position to the RIGHT of the first .i.e camera moves ==>
This would make the right side of the WTC 2 tower also close the gap to the large building in the right foreground.
It would also close the Gap between the two towers.
Playing around with a little parallel lines between the two pictures (which I can't reproduce but you can by printing out the pictures) I find that the projected Right side of the WTC 2 tower matches the right side of the "core".
Try it.
Arthur
Use Google earth with buildings and terrain enabled. Don't forget to tilt the camera angle up to view horizontally.
Using Google earth and positioning it from the same angle you can see one photo was taken from about 700 ft. (Helicopter or from one of those two tall building in NJ) The other photo was taken at about sea level. Note what happens to the building in question as you move from 700 ft to sea level.
PS: This is why those CT loons comes here. Because we are thorough.
Using Google earth and positioning it from the same angle you can see one photo was taken from about 700 ft. (Helicopter or from one of those two tall building in NJ) The other photo was taken at about sea level. Note what happens to the building in question as you move from 700 ft to sea level.
That one pic I posted was indeed aerial. It was taken by NOAA when they were passing by the WTCs on the way to check some of their equipment.
The two structures, Liberty One and what apparently was left of WTC2 briefly, don't match up. Liberty One was actually within view of the pic with the dust but was blocked completely by the dust. The other structure apparently is a remnant of WTC2 that briefly stood.
If anyone has other explanations, I'm open to suggestions.
Anyone have a video from this angle?
I think these images deminstrate how difficult it is to prove anything with photographic evidence, or on the other hand, how you can use photo evidence to prove almost anything, providing you have lots of photos with different zoom and exposure setting etc...
I don't think trying to match up sizes and positions is going to work here. Look at the top image, and then look at the bottom image... how do you explain the discrepancy?
(: hereward
I think you CAN tell that the object is the WTC.
Has to do with perspective and relative sizes.
For this discussion, Right and Left are in relationship to someone TAKING the pictures.
Note the relationship between the two towers in the first picture.
No matter WHAT angle you take a picture from this relationship is FIXED.
Now if you look at the WTC 1 Tower in both pictures you can determine:
The scale of the top WTC is slightly larger
The angle of the picture in the top WTC is more perpendicular to the face, thus making the ratio of the RIGHT side to the FACE smaller.
Which means that the 2nd photograph was taken from a position to the RIGHT of the first .i.e camera moves ==>
This would make the right side of the WTC 2 tower also close the gap to the large building in the right foreground.
It would also close the Gap between the two towers.
Playing around with a little parallel lines between the two pictures (which I can't reproduce but you can by printing out the pictures) I find that the projected Right side of the WTC 2 tower matches the right side of the "core".
Try it.
Arthur
Use Google earth with buildings and terrain enabled. Don't forget to tilt the camera angle up to view horizontally.
Using Google earth and positioning it from the same angle you can see one photo was taken from about 700 ft. (Helicopter or from one of those two tall building in NJ) The other photo was taken at about sea level. Note what happens to the building in question as you move from 700 ft to sea level.
PS: This is why those CT loons comes here. Because we are thorough.
QUOTE (Metamars+)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first
Why not SYMPATHETIC to the TRUTH?????
Arthur
Why not SYMPATHETIC to the TRUTH?????
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 03:35 PM)
Using Google earth and positioning it from the same angle you can see one photo was taken from about 700 ft. (Helicopter or from one of those two tall building in NJ) The other photo was taken at about sea level. Note what happens to the building in question as you move from 700 ft to sea level.
That one pic I posted was indeed aerial. It was taken by NOAA when they were passing by the WTCs on the way to check some of their equipment.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 03:11 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 02:35 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 03:37 AM)
Hi all.
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
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
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"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".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive ) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors.
In other words scholars for truth, headed by the great PROFESSOR JONES is to stupid to figure out what us, erum... "popes" easily point out.
If you guys need this forum to help your "paper" then it's in worse trouble than I thought...
As usual, you distorted what I wrote.
To put it plainly: you and just about every other pope have poor "signal to noise" ratios. * But some criticisms that a laymen might make (and a scientist wouldn't) might be worth adressing.
Furthermore, some of the criticisms raised by the popes are actually excellent points, and therefore useful at arriving at the truth.
You have one of the worst "signal to noise" ratios, and would do well to change your name to "Spam-a-lot". However, even you may have managed to post something worth reading.
BTW, how much physics have you ever studied in your life? IIRC, most Americans don't even take 1 high school course in physics, and I certainly get the impression that you are like most Americans, in this regard.
* Schneibster would likely be the exception, if we ignored his insulting, anyway.
Yet anyone reading just this small example of your "Unbiased scientific inquiry" can tell who started the childish insults. ("Popes") It's always your side. Then when someone defends himself you pull out your plastic badge and play cop.
In fact the only reason to send that PM message to Faux in this thread was to insult. You know it, I know it and so does anyone reading this thread.
I don't mince words. You're a lying sack of childish shiit. No matter how good your grammar is...
I have always been up front with my knowledge of physics. I have no formal education in physics. I'm here to inject common sense into the discussion. For instance, I don't need a physics class to know their were "Raging fires" in a building just hit by a 767 at 500 miles an hour. Apparently your professor faux needs proof. Heh! MORONS!
Using Google earth and positioning it from the same angle you can see one photo was taken from about 700 ft. (Helicopter or from one of those two tall building in NJ) The other photo was taken at about sea level. Note what happens to the building in question as you move from 700 ft to sea level.
That one pic I posted was indeed aerial. It was taken by NOAA when they were passing by the WTCs on the way to check some of their equipment.
Which again shows why that black building in the top photo can't be what you see as the "core"
Since the perspective of the second picture is lower and to the right it will make anything behind that building appear SHORTER in relationship to it. Drop far enough down and it will disappear all together (which is what I think happened to it and the Church Spire on the left).
If you'll note, that black building is aleady overlapped by the Large building on the Right in the top photo.
Since we know the camera has moved to the right ==> this would tend to INCREASE the overlap of the two buildings, not create a gap as is evidenced in the picture of the "core"
Finally, the top picture has a wider field of view, and so the buildings are physcially narrower in that picture than the "core" picture. Yet the Black building is in fact REVERSED from this ratio, its wider in the TOP picture.
Arthur
Using Google earth and positioning it from the same angle you can see one photo was taken from about 700 ft. (Helicopter or from one of those two tall building in NJ) The other photo was taken at about sea level. Note what happens to the building in question as you move from 700 ft to sea level.
That one pic I posted was indeed aerial. It was taken by NOAA when they were passing by the WTCs on the way to check some of their equipment.
Which again shows why that black building in the top photo can't be what you see as the "core"
Since the perspective of the second picture is lower and to the right it will make anything behind that building appear SHORTER in relationship to it. Drop far enough down and it will disappear all together (which is what I think happened to it and the Church Spire on the left).
If you'll note, that black building is aleady overlapped by the Large building on the Right in the top photo.
Since we know the camera has moved to the right ==> this would tend to INCREASE the overlap of the two buildings, not create a gap as is evidenced in the picture of the "core"
Finally, the top picture has a wider field of view, and so the buildings are physcially narrower in that picture than the "core" picture. Yet the Black building is in fact REVERSED from this ratio, its wider in the TOP picture.
Arthur
This is also what I found with google earth. I am now 99.9% sure it isn't the core.
Didn't we have a video from that angle? One from eyewitness911 or something?
As you say, metamars, NOT being infallible myself AND admitting that the nay-sayers sometimes come up with helpful information is the reason why I posted it here. I would also be appreciative of constructive or helpful criticisms from those who also don't believe the fairy tale.
Some of the obfuscators claim that they are well familiar with the NIST documents. I doubt that anyone has read the entire lot from start to finish, and I know that I haven't. The more I read (and re-read) the more I find. It's quite possible that some may have read one of the documents that I haven't and be able to provide such that may help to modify the 'analysis' I am doing.
The one I am currently working on is the 'evidence' that NIST has provided (through photographs) of these alleged fires. I would assume that they would provide the BEST pictures that they have out of their library. IF so then NIST has a real problem in my view. Their correlations between their schematic graphs (of fire in the windows) do not match the photographic record. i.e - a barely discernable fire in two windows is represented by a row of 5 or 6 windows on their graphs.
When I get to the next 'chapters' I will provide evidence (from the NIST documents themselves) of the above.
While the work I am doing might not be considered 'quantitative' in one sense, I believe it is, in the sense of showing how NIST has greatly exagerated these alleged 'infernos'.
It is going to take quite some time to accomplish what I am attempting to do in the part-time that I have available to work on it... (6 mo?... a year?). In that time there will I expect be lots of time to modify the analysis based on any new evidence that people may input. I also have to do a thorough re-reading of Trumpmans analysis before I complete the work and see what I can draw from that.
When complete, I don't expect it to be 'killer' evidence, BUT the fact remains that the official theory completely DEPENDS upon fire... without conventional fires sufficient to support the 'fairy tale', then how could 'fire' be the 'cause'.
Thanks for your comments.
Cheers
the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
I'm sorry, but I have eyes... post me a picture of ANY raging fires on the east face of the south tower which supports this 'map'.
The NIST report includes 20 or so pictures of the East face of WTC 2 that support that graph.
NOTE though that the graph is for the ENTIRE period from 9:04 to 9:58.
The Orange means flames were seen coming out a window at ANYTIME during that period.
The Red means flames were seen through the window at ANYTIME during that period.
Thus NO ONE PICTURE will match that graph.
There CLEARLY were RAGING fires on the East Face, though not all of them were, and this graph does not indicate intensity, thus it is not used as PROOF of intensity, thus once again Foxx distorts what NIST is even saying by the Graph.
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
Arthur
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive ) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors.
Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
I am well aware that the above 'integrated' map of fires represents alleged different fires and time periods... which is one reason that the official-collapse supporters LIKE these integrated fire maps. They imply that every column in that area was compromised. They also imply or give the impression to the unintelligent that these fires were floor-wide fires (just as in the LA fire) which they definately WERE NOT.
Regarding the "20 or so pictures" of the east face, I would challenge anyone to show these alleged 'raging fires' on the east face. There were nothing more that short gasping smoldering spot fires outside of a few short flare-ups... just as the fire-fighters reported moments before the collapse.
The 'reply' that Schneibster keeps posting is that the firemen didn't see the fires above them. Well anyone can SEE (from the NIST document) that these ALLEGED infernos were nothing more than dying spot fires ALL through the timeline that the NIST photos show.
The fires were not 'moving' and expanding in the sense that NIST tries to promote. They basically stayed in the same areas. I admit that sometimes one or more would flare up for short periods, but you can easily see by the report itself that the 'fairy-tale' promoted by nay-sayers doesn't even match the actual story told by NIST (except UNTIL NIST begins to 'forget' their own forensic evidence and begins to embellish that evidence into the fairy-tale which MUST be told - If they have ANY hope of supporting it).
Their own actual forensic photographic evidence doesn't support the fairy tale they are promoting.
Point out which of these east face pictures you feel supports this raging inferno idea, and I'll post it here for discussion.
Thanks
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive ) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors.
Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
He has already said he "WANTS" to be a physics major. The way he adjusts facts I would suggest accounting in an Enron style corporation...
Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
He has already said he "WANTS" to be a physics major. The way he adjusts facts I would suggest accounting in an Enron style corporation...
What he actually said:
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive ) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors.
Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
I have a bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics. I also have 18 graduate credits in applied mathematics, including a course in perturbation theory. Which is one reason I was immediately suspicious of the Bazant-Zhou paper. We had homework problems in perturbation theory that seemed much more sophisticated than their "elastic dynamic analysis".
Common Sense implies (at least) that Professor Jones is "stupid", and "Reality Check" refers to him as an "idiot". Meanwhile, I'd be very surprised if "Common Sense" has even taken a single high school course in physics, and I am, frankly, also suspicious of "Reality Check" really being a "scientist".** Their qualifications for calling accomplished individuals, like Jones and Hoffman, by these terms are almost certainly nil. I was calling them on it. If you think that's "snobbery", that's your problem.
I note that when I first expressed severe doubts about Bazant-Zhou, I did not call them "idiots" (and still haven't, and never will), and furthermore publicly asked for references on their techniques and freely admitted that I didn't fully understand their paper. Is this "snobbery", too?
I did not "dismiss" Woods' paper - that is the sort of thing that many of the popes often do.* I gave reasons why I did not find it to be helpful or useful, and broke out those reasons on a case-by-case basis. If Woods or anybody else wants to counter my arguments, they at least have something that they can specifically point to and say "No, metamars, you are wrong about this point because of X, Y, and Z"
I am quite glad that a mechanical engineer at the Ph.D. level is a member of Scholars for 911 Truth, and have made the request, through a third party, that Woods critique Gordon's paper (in preparation).
* There is little difference, in my mind, between dismissing something outright and between distorting it to the point of implausibility, and then "dismissing" the distorted caricature of the original thesis.
** Cleaning test tubes for the "big guys" does not qualify, in my book.
Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
He has already said he "WANTS" to be a physics major. The way he adjusts facts I would suggest accounting in an Enron style corporation...
What he actually said:
I stand corrected. Maybe it was his attitude toward truth which confused me. At any rate he should take up accounting for shady corporations.
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive ) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors.
Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
I have a bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics. I also have 18 graduate credits in applied mathematics, including a course in perturbation theory. Which is one reason I was immediately suspicious of the Bazant-Zhou paper. We had homework problems in perturbation theory that seemed much more sophisticated than their "elastic dynamic analysis".
Common Sense implies (at least) that Professor Jones is "stupid", and "Reality Check" refers to him as an "idiot". Meanwhile, I'd be very surprised if "Common Sense" has even taken a single high school course in physics, and I am, frankly, also suspicious of "Reality Check" really being a "scientist".** Their qualifications for calling accomplished individuals, like Jones and Hoffman, by these terms are almost certainly nil. I was calling them on it. If you think that's "snobbery", that's your problem.
I note that when I first expressed severe doubts about Bazant-Zhou, I did not call them "idiots" (and still haven't, and never will), and furthermore publicly asked for references on their techniques and freely admitted that I didn't fully understand their paper. Is this "snobbery", too?
I did not "dismiss" Woods' paper - that is the sort of thing that many of the popes often do.* I gave reasons why I did not find it to be helpful or useful, and broke out those reasons on a case-by-case basis. If Woods or anybody else wants to counter my arguments, they at least have something that they can specifically point to and say "No, metamars, you are wrong about this point because of X, Y, and Z"
I am quite glad that a mechanical engineer at the Ph.D. level is a member of Scholars for 911 Truth, and have made the request, through a third party, that Woods critique Gordon's paper (in preparation).
* There is little difference, in my mind, between dismissing something outright and between distorting it to the point of implausibility, and then "dismissing" the distorted caricature of the original thesis.
** Cleaning test tubes for the "big guys" does not qualify, in my book.
Why would someone with a degree in physics feel the need to come to a physics board simply to pass messages which could be given in PM? Messages designed to insult others reading? What collage and course is that tought in?
My insults have been always directed to people insulting me. You don't need a masters to be polite. Hiding behind your level of education so you can passively insults people is intellictually insulting and dishonest.
I'm insulting you because saying "Popes" and "Fairy tale" is not part of physics. It's propaganda and everyone here can see through it
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
QUOTE
originally posted by Christophera
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| originally posted by Christophera No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground. |
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
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
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
QUOTE
... 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.
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... 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. |
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"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".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive
) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors. In other words scholars for truth, headed by the great PROFESSOR JONES is to stupid to figure out what us, erum... "popes" easily point out.
If you guys need this forum to help your "paper" then it's in worse trouble than I thought...
As usual, you distorted what I wrote.
To put it plainly: you and just about every other pope have poor "signal to noise" ratios. * But some criticisms that a laymen might make (and a scientist wouldn't) might be worth adressing.
Furthermore, some of the criticisms raised by the popes are actually excellent points, and therefore useful at arriving at the truth.
You have one of the worst "signal to noise" ratios, and would do well to change your name to "Spam-a-lot".
However, even you may have managed to post something worth reading.BTW, how much physics have you ever studied in your life? IIRC, most Americans don't even take 1 high school course in physics, and I certainly get the impression that you are like most Americans, in this regard.
* Schneibster would likely be the exception, if we ignored his insulting, anyway.
Yet anyone reading just this small example of your "Unbiased scientific inquiry" can tell who started the childish insults. ("Popes") It's always your side. Then when someone defends himself you pull out your plastic badge and play cop.
In fact the only reason to send that PM message to Faux in this thread was to insult. You know it, I know it and so does anyone reading this thread.
I don't mince words. You're a lying sack of childish shiit. No matter how good your grammar is...
I have always been up front with my knowledge of physics. I have no formal education in physics. I'm here to inject common sense into the discussion. For instance, I don't need a physics class to know their were "Raging fires" in a building just hit by a 767 at 500 miles an hour. Apparently your professor faux needs proof. Heh! MORONS!
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 4 2006, 11:40 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 03:35 PM)
Using Google earth and positioning it from the same angle you can see one photo was taken from about 700 ft. (Helicopter or from one of those two tall building in NJ) The other photo was taken at about sea level. Note what happens to the building in question as you move from 700 ft to sea level.
That one pic I posted was indeed aerial. It was taken by NOAA when they were passing by the WTCs on the way to check some of their equipment.
Which again shows why that black building in the top photo can't be what you see as the "core"
Since the perspective of the second picture is lower and to the right it will make anything behind that building appear SHORTER in relationship to it. Drop far enough down and it will disappear all together (which is what I think happened to it and the Church Spire on the left).
If you'll note, that black building is aleady overlapped by the Large building on the Right in the top photo.
Since we know the camera has moved to the right ==> this would tend to INCREASE the overlap of the two buildings, not create a gap as is evidenced in the picture of the "core"
Finally, the top picture has a wider field of view, and so the buildings are physcially narrower in that picture than the "core" picture. Yet the Black building is in fact REVERSED from this ratio, its wider in the TOP picture.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2006, 03:56 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 4 2006, 11:40 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 03:35 PM)
Using Google earth and positioning it from the same angle you can see one photo was taken from about 700 ft. (Helicopter or from one of those two tall building in NJ) The other photo was taken at about sea level. Note what happens to the building in question as you move from 700 ft to sea level.
That one pic I posted was indeed aerial. It was taken by NOAA when they were passing by the WTCs on the way to check some of their equipment.
Which again shows why that black building in the top photo can't be what you see as the "core"
Since the perspective of the second picture is lower and to the right it will make anything behind that building appear SHORTER in relationship to it. Drop far enough down and it will disappear all together (which is what I think happened to it and the Church Spire on the left).
If you'll note, that black building is aleady overlapped by the Large building on the Right in the top photo.
Since we know the camera has moved to the right ==> this would tend to INCREASE the overlap of the two buildings, not create a gap as is evidenced in the picture of the "core"
Finally, the top picture has a wider field of view, and so the buildings are physcially narrower in that picture than the "core" picture. Yet the Black building is in fact REVERSED from this ratio, its wider in the TOP picture.
Arthur
This is also what I found with google earth. I am now 99.9% sure it isn't the core.
Didn't we have a video from that angle? One from eyewitness911 or something?
Evidence for errum... Professor faux...
"RAGING FIRES"
Looks a lot like this doesn't it...
"RAGING FIRES"
Looks a lot like this doesn't it...
QUOTE
by metamars
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
As you say, metamars, NOT being infallible myself AND admitting that the nay-sayers sometimes come up with helpful information is the reason why I posted it here. I would also be appreciative of constructive or helpful criticisms from those who also don't believe the fairy tale.
Some of the obfuscators claim that they are well familiar with the NIST documents. I doubt that anyone has read the entire lot from start to finish, and I know that I haven't. The more I read (and re-read) the more I find. It's quite possible that some may have read one of the documents that I haven't and be able to provide such that may help to modify the 'analysis' I am doing.
The one I am currently working on is the 'evidence' that NIST has provided (through photographs) of these alleged fires. I would assume that they would provide the BEST pictures that they have out of their library. IF so then NIST has a real problem in my view. Their correlations between their schematic graphs (of fire in the windows) do not match the photographic record. i.e - a barely discernable fire in two windows is represented by a row of 5 or 6 windows on their graphs.
When I get to the next 'chapters' I will provide evidence (from the NIST documents themselves) of the above.
While the work I am doing might not be considered 'quantitative' in one sense, I believe it is, in the sense of showing how NIST has greatly exagerated these alleged 'infernos'.
It is going to take quite some time to accomplish what I am attempting to do in the part-time that I have available to work on it... (6 mo?... a year?). In that time there will I expect be lots of time to modify the analysis based on any new evidence that people may input. I also have to do a thorough re-reading of Trumpmans analysis before I complete the work and see what I can draw from that.
When complete, I don't expect it to be 'killer' evidence, BUT the fact remains that the official theory completely DEPENDS upon fire... without conventional fires sufficient to support the 'fairy tale', then how could 'fire' be the 'cause'.
Thanks for your comments.
Cheers
Evidence for errum... Professor Schneibster...
The picture above is of the North Tower (which I will address later in the same fashion as the South tower), but I am far from going there yet.
However, regarding that one photo which is always passed around by gravity-driven collapse supporters as 'evidence' of raging building-collapsing fires...
shows that that particular fire was only about 20 columns wide and 2 stories high.
In the scale of the towers it is nothing more than a spot fire. It does not rage across the entire floor or floors like the fire in the 1st Interstate which was constructed in the same fashion (tube-design) as the towers.
To conclude that the fire you have shown above is a 'raging building-collapsing fire' is pure nonsense.
It's only 'raging' in that one small location. Although the 1st Interstate was of similar construction, and the fire there completely gutted 5 full floors... the building did NOT collapse into a pile of dust and debris. So your point is without merit.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/LAfire02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/LAfire03.gif
Further, according to the official-collapse promoters, the 'weight' of the portion above the impact/fire zones was contributory to the collapse.... (the remaining building just couldn't support it).
There were ONLY about 10 - 15 stories above the damage in the WTC 1 fire...
...there were 46 stories above the completely gutted 5 FULL FLOORS of damage in the LA fire.
Even IF the fires in WTC 1 & 2 could have led to collapse they would have only led to a collapse such as shown in this diagram from Arup. Notice particularly how the core columns get thinner (therefore lighter) as they near the top of the building...
... and also that that collapse was stopped by the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor.
The picture above is of the North Tower (which I will address later in the same fashion as the South tower), but I am far from going there yet.
However, regarding that one photo which is always passed around by gravity-driven collapse supporters as 'evidence' of raging building-collapsing fires...
shows that that particular fire was only about 20 columns wide and 2 stories high.
In the scale of the towers it is nothing more than a spot fire. It does not rage across the entire floor or floors like the fire in the 1st Interstate which was constructed in the same fashion (tube-design) as the towers.
To conclude that the fire you have shown above is a 'raging building-collapsing fire' is pure nonsense.
It's only 'raging' in that one small location. Although the 1st Interstate was of similar construction, and the fire there completely gutted 5 full floors... the building did NOT collapse into a pile of dust and debris. So your point is without merit.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/LAfire02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/LAfire03.gif
Further, according to the official-collapse promoters, the 'weight' of the portion above the impact/fire zones was contributory to the collapse.... (the remaining building just couldn't support it).
There were ONLY about 10 - 15 stories above the damage in the WTC 1 fire...
...there were 46 stories above the completely gutted 5 FULL FLOORS of damage in the LA fire.
Even IF the fires in WTC 1 & 2 could have led to collapse they would have only led to a collapse such as shown in this diagram from Arup. Notice particularly how the core columns get thinner (therefore lighter) as they near the top of the building...
... and also that that collapse was stopped by the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 01:55 AM)
the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
I'm sorry, but I have eyes... post me a picture of ANY raging fires on the east face of the south tower which supports this 'map'.
The NIST report includes 20 or so pictures of the East face of WTC 2 that support that graph.
NOTE though that the graph is for the ENTIRE period from 9:04 to 9:58.
The Orange means flames were seen coming out a window at ANYTIME during that period.
The Red means flames were seen through the window at ANYTIME during that period.
Thus NO ONE PICTURE will match that graph.
There CLEARLY were RAGING fires on the East Face, though not all of them were, and this graph does not indicate intensity, thus it is not used as PROOF of intensity, thus once again Foxx distorts what NIST is even saying by the Graph.
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 06:35 AM)
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive
) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors. Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
QUOTE
by arthur
The NIST report includes 20 or so pictures of the East face of WTC 2 that support that graph.
NOTE though that the graph is for the ENTIRE period from 9:04 to 9:58.
The Orange means flames were seen coming out a window at ANYTIME during that period.
The Red means flames were seen through the window at ANYTIME during that period.
Thus NO ONE PICTURE will match that graph.
There CLEARLY were RAGING fires on the East Face, though not all of them were, and this graph does not indicate intensity, thus it is not used as PROOF of intensity, thus once again Foxx distorts what NIST is even saying by the Graph.
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
The NIST report includes 20 or so pictures of the East face of WTC 2 that support that graph.
NOTE though that the graph is for the ENTIRE period from 9:04 to 9:58.
The Orange means flames were seen coming out a window at ANYTIME during that period.
The Red means flames were seen through the window at ANYTIME during that period.
Thus NO ONE PICTURE will match that graph.
There CLEARLY were RAGING fires on the East Face, though not all of them were, and this graph does not indicate intensity, thus it is not used as PROOF of intensity, thus once again Foxx distorts what NIST is even saying by the Graph.
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
I am well aware that the above 'integrated' map of fires represents alleged different fires and time periods... which is one reason that the official-collapse supporters LIKE these integrated fire maps. They imply that every column in that area was compromised. They also imply or give the impression to the unintelligent that these fires were floor-wide fires (just as in the LA fire) which they definately WERE NOT.
Regarding the "20 or so pictures" of the east face, I would challenge anyone to show these alleged 'raging fires' on the east face. There were nothing more that short gasping smoldering spot fires outside of a few short flare-ups... just as the fire-fighters reported moments before the collapse.
The 'reply' that Schneibster keeps posting is that the firemen didn't see the fires above them. Well anyone can SEE (from the NIST document) that these ALLEGED infernos were nothing more than dying spot fires ALL through the timeline that the NIST photos show.
The fires were not 'moving' and expanding in the sense that NIST tries to promote. They basically stayed in the same areas. I admit that sometimes one or more would flare up for short periods, but you can easily see by the report itself that the 'fairy-tale' promoted by nay-sayers doesn't even match the actual story told by NIST (except UNTIL NIST begins to 'forget' their own forensic evidence and begins to embellish that evidence into the fairy-tale which MUST be told - If they have ANY hope of supporting it).
Their own actual forensic photographic evidence doesn't support the fairy tale they are promoting.
Point out which of these east face pictures you feel supports this raging inferno idea, and I'll post it here for discussion.
Thanks
Comparison of 1st Interstate to WTC.
From: http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_...FEMA-report.htm
A total of 383 Los Angeles City Fire Department members from 64 companies -- nearly one-half of the on-duty force of the entire city -- were involved in fighting the fire
The building has a structural steel frame, protected by a sprayed-on protective coating, with steel floor pans and lightweight concrete. Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire.
The fire originated in an open-plan office area in the southeast quadrant of the 12th floor. The area of origin contained modular office furniture with numerous personal computers and terminals used by securities trading personnel. The fire extended to the entire open area and several office enclosures to fully involve the 12th floor, except for the passenger elevator lobby, which was protected by automatic closing fire doors.
The fire extended to floors above, primarily via the outer walls of the building; windows broke and flames penetrated behind the spandrel panels around the ends of the floor slabs. The curtain wall construction creates separations between the end of the floor slab and the exterior curtain wall.
There was heavy exposure of flames to the windows on successive floors as the fire extended upward from the 12th to 16th floors. The flames were estimated to be lapping 30 feet up the face of the building.
The fire extended at a rate estimated at 45 minutes per floor and burned intensely for approximately 90 minutes on each level. This resulted in two floors being heavily involved at any point during the fire. The upward extension was stopped at the 16th floor level, after completely destroying four and one-half floors of the building.
At 22:37, the Fire Department received three separate 9-l-l calls from people outside of the First Interstate building reporting a fire on the upper floors
the initial attack began at approximately 23:10. Due to the magnitude of the fire on the 12th floor, attack was initiated from all four stairways
The first six arriving companies were sent immediately to attack the f i r e . The initial attack used primarily 2-inch attack lines.
Companies successively launched attacks from all four stairways onto the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th floors, often encountering heavy fire from the point of entry and having to fight their way onto the floors with handlines. At times active suppression efforts were underway simultaneously on four levels as crews attempted to push the fire back from the central core to the perimeter of each floor.
The strategy employed to stop the upward progress of the fire was to use aggressive tactics on the 14th and 15th floors to reduce the fire's intensity and the resulting exposure to floors above, while setting-up with hoselines and waiting for the fire to attack the 16th floor. This strategy proved to be successful... Approximately 20 handlines were used by 32 attack companies on the five involved floors.
The 10th floor was used as the Staging Area for personnel and equipment. Companies went into action with full air cylinders and returned to the Staging Area when they were out of air. The companies operated for approximately 20 minutes in each cycle and had approximately 20 minutes to rest and change air cylinders.
Without elevators, every piece of equipment had to be carried up the stairs, including approximately 600 air cylinders. Every firefighter entering the building carried hose, nozzles, and other tools up to the 10th floor. A stairwell support operation, with nine companies assigned, spent over two hours moving equipment from the street level ... up the stairs to the Staging Area.
The building's two 750 gpm fire pumps drew water from an 85,000 gallon reservoir in the sub-basement. The resupply from the public water supply system was unable to keep pace with the outflow, estimated at over 2,000 gallons per minute, and there were fears that the tank would be emptied. The tank was down to less than one-third of its capacity when the fire was controlled.
Now, does ANYBODY see ANYTHING remotely similar about these, well except that fires were involved?
One had a plane crash that caused massive structural damage and knocked off the insulation. One had no plane crash and excellent insulation.
One had 20 2" lines pouring 2,000 gallons of water on the fire EVERY MINUTE. The best they could do was piss on the other one.
And though Foxx goes on about 5 floors, read the description of how they progressed and also keep in mind that the central core was kept relatively fire free.
Sheesh
Arthur
From: http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_...FEMA-report.htm
A total of 383 Los Angeles City Fire Department members from 64 companies -- nearly one-half of the on-duty force of the entire city -- were involved in fighting the fire
The building has a structural steel frame, protected by a sprayed-on protective coating, with steel floor pans and lightweight concrete. Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire.
The fire originated in an open-plan office area in the southeast quadrant of the 12th floor. The area of origin contained modular office furniture with numerous personal computers and terminals used by securities trading personnel. The fire extended to the entire open area and several office enclosures to fully involve the 12th floor, except for the passenger elevator lobby, which was protected by automatic closing fire doors.
The fire extended to floors above, primarily via the outer walls of the building; windows broke and flames penetrated behind the spandrel panels around the ends of the floor slabs. The curtain wall construction creates separations between the end of the floor slab and the exterior curtain wall.
There was heavy exposure of flames to the windows on successive floors as the fire extended upward from the 12th to 16th floors. The flames were estimated to be lapping 30 feet up the face of the building.
The fire extended at a rate estimated at 45 minutes per floor and burned intensely for approximately 90 minutes on each level. This resulted in two floors being heavily involved at any point during the fire. The upward extension was stopped at the 16th floor level, after completely destroying four and one-half floors of the building.
At 22:37, the Fire Department received three separate 9-l-l calls from people outside of the First Interstate building reporting a fire on the upper floors
the initial attack began at approximately 23:10. Due to the magnitude of the fire on the 12th floor, attack was initiated from all four stairways
The first six arriving companies were sent immediately to attack the f i r e . The initial attack used primarily 2-inch attack lines.
Companies successively launched attacks from all four stairways onto the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th floors, often encountering heavy fire from the point of entry and having to fight their way onto the floors with handlines. At times active suppression efforts were underway simultaneously on four levels as crews attempted to push the fire back from the central core to the perimeter of each floor.
The strategy employed to stop the upward progress of the fire was to use aggressive tactics on the 14th and 15th floors to reduce the fire's intensity and the resulting exposure to floors above, while setting-up with hoselines and waiting for the fire to attack the 16th floor. This strategy proved to be successful... Approximately 20 handlines were used by 32 attack companies on the five involved floors.
The 10th floor was used as the Staging Area for personnel and equipment. Companies went into action with full air cylinders and returned to the Staging Area when they were out of air. The companies operated for approximately 20 minutes in each cycle and had approximately 20 minutes to rest and change air cylinders.
Without elevators, every piece of equipment had to be carried up the stairs, including approximately 600 air cylinders. Every firefighter entering the building carried hose, nozzles, and other tools up to the 10th floor. A stairwell support operation, with nine companies assigned, spent over two hours moving equipment from the street level ... up the stairs to the Staging Area.
The building's two 750 gpm fire pumps drew water from an 85,000 gallon reservoir in the sub-basement. The resupply from the public water supply system was unable to keep pace with the outflow, estimated at over 2,000 gallons per minute, and there were fears that the tank would be emptied. The tank was down to less than one-third of its capacity when the fire was controlled.
Now, does ANYBODY see ANYTHING remotely similar about these, well except that fires were involved?
One had a plane crash that caused massive structural damage and knocked off the insulation. One had no plane crash and excellent insulation.
One had 20 2" lines pouring 2,000 gallons of water on the fire EVERY MINUTE. The best they could do was piss on the other one.
And though Foxx goes on about 5 floors, read the description of how they progressed and also keep in mind that the central core was kept relatively fire free.
Sheesh
Arthur
Bottom pic does a fair job of resolving the question. Good find. I too believe it is taken by the same photograper.
Shagsters done a good job of mixing the 2 images here. THX!
Shagsters done a good job of mixing the 2 images here. THX!
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 05:34 PM)
Evidence for errum... Professor Schneibster...
The picture above is of the North Tower (which I will address later in the same fashion as the South tower), but I am far from going there yet.
However, regarding that one photo which is always passed around by gravity-driven collapse supporters as 'evidence' of raging building-collapsing fires...
shows that that particular fire was only about 20 columns wide and 2 stories high.
In the scale of the towers it is nothing more than a spot fire. It does not rage across the entire floor or floors like the fire in the 1st Interstate which was constructed in the same fashion (tube-design) as the towers.
To conclude that the fire you have shown above is a 'raging building-collapsing fire' is pure nonsense.
It's only 'raging' in that one small location. Although the 1st Interstate was of similar construction, and the fire there completely gutted 5 full floors... the building did NOT collapse into a pile of dust and debris. So your point is without merit.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/LAfire02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/LAfire03.gif
Further, according to the official-collapse promoters, the 'weight' of the portion above the impact/fire zones was contributory to the collapse.... (the remaining building just couldn't support it).
There were ONLY about 10 - 15 stories above the damage in the WTC 1 fire...
...there were 46 stories above the completely gutted 5 FULL FLOORS of damage in the LA fire.
Even IF the fires in WTC 1 & 2 could have led to collapse they would have only led to a collapse such as shown in this diagram from Arup. Notice particularly how the core columns get thinner (therefore lighter) as they near the top of the building...
... and also that that collapse was stopped by the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor.
Well I knew you would talk KAKA so I created a gallery chronicling the fires progression on the east side...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire2.htm
Lets forget for a moment that professor Faux/Mel needs photos to prove intence fires in a building that was just hit by an airliner... Using the very same NIST document you gave us. This proves beyond a doubt you are purposefully ignoring evidence! Shameful...
The picture above is of the North Tower (which I will address later in the same fashion as the South tower), but I am far from going there yet.
However, regarding that one photo which is always passed around by gravity-driven collapse supporters as 'evidence' of raging building-collapsing fires...
shows that that particular fire was only about 20 columns wide and 2 stories high.
In the scale of the towers it is nothing more than a spot fire. It does not rage across the entire floor or floors like the fire in the 1st Interstate which was constructed in the same fashion (tube-design) as the towers.
To conclude that the fire you have shown above is a 'raging building-collapsing fire' is pure nonsense.
It's only 'raging' in that one small location. Although the 1st Interstate was of similar construction, and the fire there completely gutted 5 full floors... the building did NOT collapse into a pile of dust and debris. So your point is without merit.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/LAfire02.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/LAfire03.gif
Further, according to the official-collapse promoters, the 'weight' of the portion above the impact/fire zones was contributory to the collapse.... (the remaining building just couldn't support it).
There were ONLY about 10 - 15 stories above the damage in the WTC 1 fire...
...there were 46 stories above the completely gutted 5 FULL FLOORS of damage in the LA fire.
Even IF the fires in WTC 1 & 2 could have led to collapse they would have only led to a collapse such as shown in this diagram from Arup. Notice particularly how the core columns get thinner (therefore lighter) as they near the top of the building...
... and also that that collapse was stopped by the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor.
Well I knew you would talk KAKA so I created a gallery chronicling the fires progression on the east side...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire2.htm
Lets forget for a moment that professor Faux/Mel needs photos to prove intence fires in a building that was just hit by an airliner...
Using the very same NIST document you gave us. This proves beyond a doubt you are purposefully ignoring evidence! Shameful...
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 4 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 06:35 AM)
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive
) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors. Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
He has already said he "WANTS" to be a physics major. The way he adjusts facts I would suggest accounting in an Enron style corporation...
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 07:19 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 4 2006, 05:50 PM)
Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
He has already said he "WANTS" to be a physics major. The way he adjusts facts I would suggest accounting in an Enron style corporation...
What he actually said:
QUOTE
...I have never stated, or pretended, that I am a scientist. I have a degree in physics and mathematics, and therefore have good insight into how a scientist thinks.
I may be going to graduate school for at least a master's degree in physics, so this situation may change.
I may be going to graduate school for at least a master's degree in physics, so this situation may change.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 4 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 06:35 AM)
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive
) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors. Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
I have a bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics. I also have 18 graduate credits in applied mathematics, including a course in perturbation theory. Which is one reason I was immediately suspicious of the Bazant-Zhou paper. We had homework problems in perturbation theory that seemed much more sophisticated than their "elastic dynamic analysis".
Common Sense implies (at least) that Professor Jones is "stupid", and "Reality Check" refers to him as an "idiot". Meanwhile, I'd be very surprised if "Common Sense" has even taken a single high school course in physics, and I am, frankly, also suspicious of "Reality Check" really being a "scientist".** Their qualifications for calling accomplished individuals, like Jones and Hoffman, by these terms are almost certainly nil. I was calling them on it. If you think that's "snobbery", that's your problem.
I note that when I first expressed severe doubts about Bazant-Zhou, I did not call them "idiots" (and still haven't, and never will), and furthermore publicly asked for references on their techniques and freely admitted that I didn't fully understand their paper. Is this "snobbery", too?
I did not "dismiss" Woods' paper - that is the sort of thing that many of the popes often do.* I gave reasons why I did not find it to be helpful or useful, and broke out those reasons on a case-by-case basis. If Woods or anybody else wants to counter my arguments, they at least have something that they can specifically point to and say "No, metamars, you are wrong about this point because of X, Y, and Z"
I am quite glad that a mechanical engineer at the Ph.D. level is a member of Scholars for 911 Truth, and have made the request, through a third party, that Woods critique Gordon's paper (in preparation).
* There is little difference, in my mind, between dismissing something outright and between distorting it to the point of implausibility, and then "dismissing" the distorted caricature of the original thesis.
** Cleaning test tubes for the "big guys" does not qualify, in my book.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 4 2006, 07:42 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 07:19 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 4 2006, 05:50 PM)
Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
He has already said he "WANTS" to be a physics major. The way he adjusts facts I would suggest accounting in an Enron style corporation...
What he actually said:
QUOTE
...I have never stated, or pretended, that I am a scientist. I have a degree in physics and mathematics, and therefore have good insight into how a scientist thinks.
I may be going to graduate school for at least a master's degree in physics, so this situation may change.
I may be going to graduate school for at least a master's degree in physics, so this situation may change.
I stand corrected. Maybe it was his attitude toward truth which confused me. At any rate he should take up accounting for shady corporations.
Also, FYI, Foxx and I had a PM exchange about (in part) the value of replying to the endless stream of distortionist and propangandistic posting, vs. reaching out to scientists directly.
Foxx referred to himself as a former "skulker", while making some very good points as to why it may be of value to continue arguing the case in a thread such as this.
Now I have a question for you. Do you think this thread on physorg.com is the optimal way to have the issue debated by serious scientists? Please tell us your reasons.
Foxx referred to himself as a former "skulker", while making some very good points as to why it may be of value to continue arguing the case in a thread such as this.
Now I have a question for you. Do you think this thread on physorg.com is the optimal way to have the issue debated by serious scientists? Please tell us your reasons.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 07:53 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 4 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 06:35 AM)
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive
) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors. Metemars , what exactly is you background ? Your intellectual snobbery is really getting old.
You dismissed Judy Woods Ph.d work by the fact that not all the energy would transfer and the type of collision (making the graph a worse case example). The only problem I could see is she returned the acceleration to zero after every transfer not accounting for the acceleration of the previous floor.
For everyone you and Foxx are calling “skulker”, could you define what that means?
I have a bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics. I also have 18 graduate credits in applied mathematics, including a course in perturbation theory. Which is one reason I was immediately suspicious of the Bazant-Zhou paper. We had homework problems in perturbation theory that seemed much more sophisticated than their "elastic dynamic analysis".
Common Sense implies (at least) that Professor Jones is "stupid", and "Reality Check" refers to him as an "idiot". Meanwhile, I'd be very surprised if "Common Sense" has even taken a single high school course in physics, and I am, frankly, also suspicious of "Reality Check" really being a "scientist".** Their qualifications for calling accomplished individuals, like Jones and Hoffman, by these terms are almost certainly nil. I was calling them on it. If you think that's "snobbery", that's your problem.
I note that when I first expressed severe doubts about Bazant-Zhou, I did not call them "idiots" (and still haven't, and never will), and furthermore publicly asked for references on their techniques and freely admitted that I didn't fully understand their paper. Is this "snobbery", too?
I did not "dismiss" Woods' paper - that is the sort of thing that many of the popes often do.* I gave reasons why I did not find it to be helpful or useful, and broke out those reasons on a case-by-case basis. If Woods or anybody else wants to counter my arguments, they at least have something that they can specifically point to and say "No, metamars, you are wrong about this point because of X, Y, and Z"
I am quite glad that a mechanical engineer at the Ph.D. level is a member of Scholars for 911 Truth, and have made the request, through a third party, that Woods critique Gordon's paper (in preparation).
* There is little difference, in my mind, between dismissing something outright and between distorting it to the point of implausibility, and then "dismissing" the distorted caricature of the original thesis.
** Cleaning test tubes for the "big guys" does not qualify, in my book.
Why would someone with a degree in physics feel the need to come to a physics board simply to pass messages which could be given in PM? Messages designed to insult others reading? What collage and course is that tought in?
My insults have been always directed to people insulting me. You don't need a masters to be polite. Hiding behind your level of education so you can passively insults people is intellictually insulting and dishonest.
I'm insulting you because saying "Popes" and "Fairy tale" is not part of physics. It's propaganda and everyone here can see through it
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 08:00 PM)
Also, FYI, Foxx and I had a PM exchange about (in part) the value of replying to the endless stream of distortionist and propangandistic posting, vs. reaching out to scientists directly.
Foxx referred to himself as a former "skulker", while making some very good points as to why it may be of value to continue arguing the case in a thread such as this.
Now I have a question for you. Do you think this thread on physorg.com is the optimal way to have the issue debated by serious scientists? Please tell us your reasons.
Yeah, and both of you continue to grace us with your presents. I wonder why...
Make up your mind "professor", you want him to post here or not...
Maybe "Conspiracy Central" is a better place to insult and conspire.
Foxx referred to himself as a former "skulker", while making some very good points as to why it may be of value to continue arguing the case in a thread such as this.
Now I have a question for you. Do you think this thread on physorg.com is the optimal way to have the issue debated by serious scientists? Please tell us your reasons.
Yeah, and both of you continue to grace us with your presents. I wonder why...
Make up your mind "professor", you want him to post here or not...
Maybe "Conspiracy Central" is a better place to insult and conspire.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 03:45 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 03:11 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 02:35 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 03:37 AM)
Hi all.
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
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
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"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".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive ) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors.
In other words scholars for truth, headed by the great PROFESSOR JONES is to stupid to figure out what us, erum... "popes" easily point out.
If you guys need this forum to help your "paper" then it's in worse trouble than I thought...
As usual, you distorted what I wrote.
To put it plainly: you and just about every other pope have poor "signal to noise" ratios. * But some criticisms that a laymen might make (and a scientist wouldn't) might be worth adressing.
Furthermore, some of the criticisms raised by the popes are actually excellent points, and therefore useful at arriving at the truth.
You have one of the worst "signal to noise" ratios, and would do well to change your name to "Spam-a-lot". However, even you may have managed to post something worth reading.
BTW, how much physics have you ever studied in your life? IIRC, most Americans don't even take 1 high school course in physics, and I certainly get the impression that you are like most Americans, in this regard.
* Schneibster would likely be the exception, if we ignored his insulting, anyway.
Yet anyone reading just this small example of your "Unbiased scientific inquiry" can tell who started the childish insults. ("Popes") It's always your side. Then when someone defends himself you pull out your plastic badge and play cop.
In fact the only reason to send that PM message to Faux in this thread was to insult. You know it, I know it and so does anyone reading this thread.
I don't mince words. You're a lying sack of childish shiit. No matter how good your grammar is...
I have always been up front with my knowledge of physics. I have no formal education in physics. I'm here to inject common sense into the discussion. For instance, I don't need a physics class to know their were "Raging fires" in a building just hit by a 767 at 500 miles an hour. Apparently your professor faux needs proof. Heh! MORONS!
I see. So you feel so well endowed with "common sense", that you have no problem passing judgement on the intelligence of a Ph.D. physicist, in spite of the fact that you have 0 training in physics.
And, furthermore, your "common sense" is so extraordinary that you can seriously make a statement like:
Never mind that there are no pictures that most people - and I do mean laymen, not physicists or other scientists - would describe as "raging fires".* You have so much "common sense", even beyond that of, well, "common" people, that you can see things that they can't.
Your distortionist and shoddy reasoning are exposed in almost every post you make. The above quote shows that, in addition, your grasp of reality is on the feeble side.
The fact that you can find other popes, such as Reality Check, to also describe the fires as "raging infernos" impresses me not at all, and merely underscores the "self-validating" aspects of the peculiar pope-ish habits of mind that you, and other popes, exhibit.
* of course, "raging fire" is understood as "raging fire from within the building". The fireball was "spectacular", but was visible, and burned, mostly outside the building. Perhaps you misspoke, and meant to say raging smoke?
the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
It seems the obfuscators are doing everything in their power to shut down the truth here.
I see we have some new visitors (including 'Christophera' from 'Algoxy'}.
------------Christophera
QUOTE
originally posted by Christophera
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground.
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| originally posted by Christophera No images of steel core columns can be found, either during construction, during the fall of the towers, or after they are on the ground. |
Hi 'algoxy'....
I have read much of your work, and found it quite interesting... and even convincing at times.
However, based upon my research, (no offense intended), your theory seems (to me) to be on extremely tenuous grounds.
I followed all the links to your references to persons and news organizations, websites etc that mentioned concrete walls around the core, but didn't find much that was confirmable...
You didn't happen to work for BBC did you?
(just joking)
There are numerous images - (far too numerous to even begin to post) which show massive steel box columns, and we know from photographic evidence that they went at least up to the 1st mechanical floor.
There is other evidence that these box columns went up to the 2nd mechanical floor (although naturally they got progressively thinner in dimension... the higher they went, as proportional to the less weight they were supporting.
Here is a diagram from Arup which is a generalized manner of construction in the 'tube-within-a-tube' design...
If adoucette hasn't already advised you, (before I post this), there is abundant evidence of massive centre core columns which just can not be denied...
to say there is 'no evidence' of them is ... well ...
just silly.
------------- Shagster
Re: your quote here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=69183
An interesting take, and somewhat plausible (in my opinion).
But, one problem I note is that you do not provide any references to support your words.
Should we just accept your pronouncements as fact?
Shouldn't you provide support for your statements in the form of some sort of references, so we can 'check' your words?
---------------ScottS
WTC 7 smoke video
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
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
Interesting discussion about those smoke clouds pouring out of WTC 7.
I sure hope we can see more of those from NIST when (and IF) they ever reveal their expose on # 7.
I don't have time to deal with that issue right now, but thanks for those revealing pictures. I have them added to my files.
----------- arthur
QUOTE
... 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.
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... 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. |
please see...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/1stInterstate.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
-------------- Schneibster
Schneibster's post makes perfect sense to me. I can create sparks just by hitting a sledge hammer on a concrete curb. The towers turned into the mother of all jack hammers that day. I can easily envision massive heat/temperatures because the harder you swing the sledge hammer the more heat you make. The heavier the sledge hammer the more heat you make. A 32 story sledge hammer must have created a hell of a lot of temperature.
Reply --- "In no kind of collapse - even one that massive (such as a rock slide off a mountain) are temperatures that high observed from dissipated kinetic energy."
TRUE
-------------arthur
Thermite blobs... Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h3.jpg
Thanks
Original --- Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Thanks again... you are helpful, even though you don't realize the ways you are being so.
Jones statement ---
"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".
Please see:
NIST documents here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
-------------------
Well, sorry for all the posts I have missed... what?... 10 or so pages of spam in the last day or so?
I somehow think that is the 'object'.
I have decided to respond to those detractors who keep pressing me to 'put it all down in black & white'.
It seems the schneiby crew has put together an obfuscating 'debunking' website called '9/11myths' (or something like that).
You are all now all aware of the homepage, but it was this particular page which caught my eye...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire
It always catches my eye, when someone posts a couple of NIST photos out of context, and says...
"there... that PROVES the case" !!!
If you are to understand WHAT 'arsoNIST' is presenting, then the whole picture must be taken in context.
I'm afraid that I can't just post a couple of pictures 'out of context' in reply, and say... THERE!
I'm still waaaaayyyyy back putting together my files regarding the 'FIRES'...
This smoke & mirrors game being played by 'someone' is easily refuted nonsense.
I am starting to put my files together (huge amount of work).
Metamars has suggested in the past that I put these together in some kind of paper that can be 'peer-reviewed'.
So here is what I propose to do...
an independant analysis on the NIST report as a critique of the scientific method they have used to reach their findings.
I have been working on this for quite some time...(although the 'publishing-end' of things may seem to be waaayyy back at the beginning.)
I will continue working on it to get my 'paper' together. I have done the research and have all the files... it's now just a matter of putting them together in a clear fashion that anyone can understand and transposing them to the web.
I had hoped that there would be greater scientific input regarding the FLIR images I previously posted. These came directly from the NIST report itself.
It seems to me that MANY here are claiming great knowledge regarding WHAT EXACTLY 'arsoNIST' has reported, without any great knowledge of what they are talking about.
I know what they are saying...
"Look at the emperors nice new clothes"
I say... "Malarkey... the guy is standing there naked"
Towards these ends, I am beginning to open my files.
Please don't expect an instantaneous expose. This will take a great deal of work and time to put the NIST lies to paper.
Geez, NIST has had 20 million to put together this 'smoke & mirrors' show, and the obfuscators expect me (or us) to just present an immediate response (in 100 words or less) ?
I have finally gotten together the webpage to present all my files, and have published the 'Oceanmirage' homepage on this investigation today.
Please help me to keep strictly to the FACTS.
So here is just the START...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/index.html
If you can't find the cleverly hidden 'secret entrance door'... please send a self-addressed / self-stamped envelope containing 16 million dollars, and I'll show you where it is.
Enjoy
Thanks for your efforts at creating a coherent, summary document. Obviously, posting to a thread which is discussing, after all this time, whether the towers can be adequately described as a "tube within a tube", or not, has severe limitations, and is a poor way to reach the scientific community. (Though your point, communicated privately, re "skulkers" has merit. The question in my mind, though, is how much merit wrt scientists?)
I suggest that you pass a draft around for internal review by people sympathetic to our side first, then post a revised draft here, and then finally submit a final version to 911 Scholars for Truth.
As to why it might it be a good idea to post it here, before Scholars for 911 Truth:
even some of the nit-picky and distorted criticism of the popes might be useful for tightening up your paper. E.g., a "critic" of Jones recently made a big deal about Jones' reporting somebody's observations of a sound of an explosion, but not this person's interpretation that "it could be anything".
After being subjected to the usual nit-picking, distortion, insults, and pseudo-logic, you can ask yourself, "Are any of the criticisms worth adressing"? E.g., were I Jones, I might well add a footnote with the "it could be anything" quote. Unfortunately, Jones has to be concerned about not just the scientific community, but also laymen.....
Furthermore, unlike the popes, you and I (and Albert Einstein, when he was alive
) are capable of making errors, and the popes are often better at spotting errors in their opponents, just as we are typically far better at catching their errors. In other words scholars for truth, headed by the great PROFESSOR JONES is to stupid to figure out what us, erum... "popes" easily point out.
If you guys need this forum to help your "paper" then it's in worse trouble than I thought...
As usual, you distorted what I wrote.
To put it plainly: you and just about every other pope have poor "signal to noise" ratios. * But some criticisms that a laymen might make (and a scientist wouldn't) might be worth adressing.
Furthermore, some of the criticisms raised by the popes are actually excellent points, and therefore useful at arriving at the truth.
You have one of the worst "signal to noise" ratios, and would do well to change your name to "Spam-a-lot".
However, even you may have managed to post something worth reading.BTW, how much physics have you ever studied in your life? IIRC, most Americans don't even take 1 high school course in physics, and I certainly get the impression that you are like most Americans, in this regard.
* Schneibster would likely be the exception, if we ignored his insulting, anyway.
Yet anyone reading just this small example of your "Unbiased scientific inquiry" can tell who started the childish insults. ("Popes") It's always your side. Then when someone defends himself you pull out your plastic badge and play cop.
In fact the only reason to send that PM message to Faux in this thread was to insult. You know it, I know it and so does anyone reading this thread.
I don't mince words. You're a lying sack of childish shiit. No matter how good your grammar is...
I have always been up front with my knowledge of physics. I have no formal education in physics. I'm here to inject common sense into the discussion. For instance, I don't need a physics class to know their were "Raging fires" in a building just hit by a 767 at 500 miles an hour. Apparently your professor faux needs proof. Heh! MORONS!
I see. So you feel so well endowed with "common sense", that you have no problem passing judgement on the intelligence of a Ph.D. physicist, in spite of the fact that you have 0 training in physics.
And, furthermore, your "common sense" is so extraordinary that you can seriously make a statement like:
QUOTE
For instance, I don't need a physics class to know their were "Raging fires" in a building just hit by a 767 at 500 miles an hour.
Never mind that there are no pictures that most people - and I do mean laymen, not physicists or other scientists - would describe as "raging fires".* You have so much "common sense", even beyond that of, well, "common" people, that you can see things that they can't.
Your distortionist and shoddy reasoning are exposed in almost every post you make. The above quote shows that, in addition, your grasp of reality is on the feeble side.
The fact that you can find other popes, such as Reality Check, to also describe the fires as "raging infernos" impresses me not at all, and merely underscores the "self-validating" aspects of the peculiar pope-ish habits of mind that you, and other popes, exhibit.
* of course, "raging fire" is understood as "raging fire from within the building". The fireball was "spectacular", but was visible, and burned, mostly outside the building. Perhaps you misspoke, and meant to say raging smoke?
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 02:23 AM)
the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
I am well aware that the above 'integrated' map of fires represents alleged different fires and time periods... which is one reason that the official-collapse supporters LIKE these integrated fire maps. They imply that every column in that area was compromised. They also imply or give the impression to the unintelligent that these fires were floor-wide fires (just as in the LA fire) which they definately WERE NOT.
NIST doesn't use them to IMPLY anything, NIST uses them to compare the FIRE spread in section 9.6.
Had they wanted to explain by IMPLICATION, they wouldn't have shown the supporting photos, the detailed discussion and the many different time maps.
The ONLY reason I read your posts anymore is to find out what you are LYING about now.
Arthur
NIST doesn't use them to IMPLY anything, NIST uses them to compare the FIRE spread in section 9.6.
Had they wanted to explain by IMPLICATION, they wouldn't have shown the supporting photos, the detailed discussion and the many different time maps.
The ONLY reason I read your posts anymore is to find out what you are LYING about now.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2006, 06:47 PM)
Comparison of 1st Interstate to WTC.
From: http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_...FEMA-report.htm
A total of 383 Los Angeles City Fire Department members from 64 companies -- nearly one-half of the on-duty force of the entire city -- were involved in fighting the fire
The building has a structural steel frame, protected by a sprayed-on protective coating, with steel floor pans and lightweight concrete. Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire.
The fire originated in an open-plan office area in the southeast quadrant of the 12th floor. The area of origin contained modular office furniture with numerous personal computers and terminals used by securities trading personnel. The fire extended to the entire open area and several office enclosures to fully involve the 12th floor, except for the passenger elevator lobby, which was protected by automatic closing fire doors.
The fire extended to floors above, primarily via the outer walls of the building; windows broke and flames penetrated behind the spandrel panels around the ends of the floor slabs. The curtain wall construction creates separations between the end of the floor slab and the exterior curtain wall.
There was heavy exposure of flames to the windows on successive floors as the fire extended upward from the 12th to 16th floors. The flames were estimated to be lapping 30 feet up the face of the building.
The fire extended at a rate estimated at 45 minutes per floor and burned intensely for approximately 90 minutes on each level. This resulted in two floors being heavily involved at any point during the fire. The upward extension was stopped at the 16th floor level, after completely destroying four and one-half floors of the building.
At 22:37, the Fire Department received three separate 9-l-l calls from people outside of the First Interstate building reporting a fire on the upper floors
the initial attack began at approximately 23:10. Due to the magnitude of the fire on the 12th floor, attack was initiated from all four stairways
The first six arriving companies were sent immediately to attack the f i r e . The initial attack used primarily 2-inch attack lines.
Companies successively launched attacks from all four stairways onto the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th floors, often encountering heavy fire from the point of entry and having to fight their way onto the floors with handlines. At times active suppression efforts were underway simultaneously on four levels as crews attempted to push the fire back from the central core to the perimeter of each floor.
The strategy employed to stop the upward progress of the fire was to use aggressive tactics on the 14th and 15th floors to reduce the fire's intensity and the resulting exposure to floors above, while setting-up with hoselines and waiting for the fire to attack the 16th floor. This strategy proved to be successful... Approximately 20 handlines were used by 32 attack companies on the five involved floors.
The 10th floor was used as the Staging Area for personnel and equipment. Companies went into action with full air cylinders and returned to the Staging Area when they were out of air. The companies operated for approximately 20 minutes in each cycle and had approximately 20 minutes to rest and change air cylinders.
Without elevators, every piece of equipment had to be carried up the stairs, including approximately 600 air cylinders. Every firefighter entering the building carried hose, nozzles, and other tools up to the 10th floor. A stairwell support operation, with nine companies assigned, spent over two hours moving equipment from the street level ... up the stairs to the Staging Area.
The building's two 750 gpm fire pumps drew water from an 85,000 gallon reservoir in the sub-basement. The resupply from the public water supply system was unable to keep pace with the outflow, estimated at over 2,000 gallons per minute, and there were fears that the tank would be emptied. The tank was down to less than one-third of its capacity when the fire was controlled.
Now, does ANYBODY see ANYTHING remotely similar about these, well except that fires were involved?
One had a plane crash that caused massive structural damage and knocked off the insulation. One had no plane crash and excellent insulation.
One had 20 2" lines pouring 2,000 gallons of water on the fire. One didn't.
And though Foxx goes on about 5 floors, read the description of how they progressed and also keep in mind that the central core was kept relatively fire free.
Sheesh
Arthur
I don't care WHAT degree Metamars has. He has red this as well and still thinks Faux is the right man to find the "truth". This is just another glaring illustration of the down right corrupt way they are collecting and disseminating information.
I think they need us because their book is going to be geared to the average Joe like us. They have to know what evidence to put and what not to put in order to con largest amount of the public.
What other POSSIBLE reason Metamars could have for selecting Faux as right hand man? He EXCELS at ignoring evidence! What other reason could a person with a degree have for picking the person with the worse record in gathering evidence as a right hand man? Someone explain this to me!
I don't need a degree to see what's going on here...
From: http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_...FEMA-report.htm
A total of 383 Los Angeles City Fire Department members from 64 companies -- nearly one-half of the on-duty force of the entire city -- were involved in fighting the fire
The building has a structural steel frame, protected by a sprayed-on protective coating, with steel floor pans and lightweight concrete. Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire.
The fire originated in an open-plan office area in the southeast quadrant of the 12th floor. The area of origin contained modular office furniture with numerous personal computers and terminals used by securities trading personnel. The fire extended to the entire open area and several office enclosures to fully involve the 12th floor, except for the passenger elevator lobby, which was protected by automatic closing fire doors.
The fire extended to floors above, primarily via the outer walls of the building; windows broke and flames penetrated behind the spandrel panels around the ends of the floor slabs. The curtain wall construction creates separations between the end of the floor slab and the exterior curtain wall.
There was heavy exposure of flames to the windows on successive floors as the fire extended upward from the 12th to 16th floors. The flames were estimated to be lapping 30 feet up the face of the building.
The fire extended at a rate estimated at 45 minutes per floor and burned intensely for approximately 90 minutes on each level. This resulted in two floors being heavily involved at any point during the fire. The upward extension was stopped at the 16th floor level, after completely destroying four and one-half floors of the building.
At 22:37, the Fire Department received three separate 9-l-l calls from people outside of the First Interstate building reporting a fire on the upper floors
the initial attack began at approximately 23:10. Due to the magnitude of the fire on the 12th floor, attack was initiated from all four stairways
The first six arriving companies were sent immediately to attack the f i r e . The initial attack used primarily 2-inch attack lines.
Companies successively launched attacks from all four stairways onto the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th floors, often encountering heavy fire from the point of entry and having to fight their way onto the floors with handlines. At times active suppression efforts were underway simultaneously on four levels as crews attempted to push the fire back from the central core to the perimeter of each floor.
The strategy employed to stop the upward progress of the fire was to use aggressive tactics on the 14th and 15th floors to reduce the fire's intensity and the resulting exposure to floors above, while setting-up with hoselines and waiting for the fire to attack the 16th floor. This strategy proved to be successful... Approximately 20 handlines were used by 32 attack companies on the five involved floors.
The 10th floor was used as the Staging Area for personnel and equipment. Companies went into action with full air cylinders and returned to the Staging Area when they were out of air. The companies operated for approximately 20 minutes in each cycle and had approximately 20 minutes to rest and change air cylinders.
Without elevators, every piece of equipment had to be carried up the stairs, including approximately 600 air cylinders. Every firefighter entering the building carried hose, nozzles, and other tools up to the 10th floor. A stairwell support operation, with nine companies assigned, spent over two hours moving equipment from the street level ... up the stairs to the Staging Area.
The building's two 750 gpm fire pumps drew water from an 85,000 gallon reservoir in the sub-basement. The resupply from the public water supply system was unable to keep pace with the outflow, estimated at over 2,000 gallons per minute, and there were fears that the tank would be emptied. The tank was down to less than one-third of its capacity when the fire was controlled.
Now, does ANYBODY see ANYTHING remotely similar about these, well except that fires were involved?
One had a plane crash that caused massive structural damage and knocked off the insulation. One had no plane crash and excellent insulation.
One had 20 2" lines pouring 2,000 gallons of water on the fire. One didn't.
And though Foxx goes on about 5 floors, read the description of how they progressed and also keep in mind that the central core was kept relatively fire free.
Sheesh
Arthur
I don't care WHAT degree Metamars has. He has red this as well and still thinks Faux is the right man to find the "truth". This is just another glaring illustration of the down right corrupt way they are collecting and disseminating information.
I think they need us because their book is going to be geared to the average Joe like us. They have to know what evidence to put and what not to put in order to con largest amount of the public.
What other POSSIBLE reason Metamars could have for selecting Faux as right hand man? He EXCELS at ignoring evidence! What other reason could a person with a degree have for picking the person with the worse record in gathering evidence as a right hand man? Someone explain this to me!
I don't need a degree to see what's going on here...
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 12:00 PM)
Also, FYI, Foxx and I had a PM exchange about (in part) the value of replying to the endless stream of distortionist and propangandistic posting, vs. reaching out to scientists directly.
Foxx referred to himself as a former "skulker", while making some very good points as to why it may be of value to continue arguing the case in a thread such as this.
Now I have a question for you. Do you think this thread on physorg.com is the optimal way to have the issue debated by serious scientists? Please tell us your reasons.
If you are talking to me of course not. I have learned a great deal from this thread however I also get tired of the spamming and disinformation. People like Arthur do unintentionally bring valuable and usually well referenced information. The amount of disinformation on the subject is staggering and everyone needs to sort through the BS. Foxx obviously has good information even though I don’t agree with everything he post. Your posts are concise and good for people who don’t necessarily understand the technical aspects of some papers. Gordon’s are excellent and that is why the disinformation people tend to ignored him. If Common Sense posted accurate information and stopped spamming it would not be so frustrating.
As I understand it The Scholars for Truth have a forum, you just need to be approved. I am sure the information is higher caliber and better researched. With the political climate in the country I really would not want my name published even though they let non- scholars join..
As far as the “tube within a tube”, if everyone agrees the core resembles a hollow tube and exhibits the characteristics of this, call it what you want (it definitely is in publications). I personally do not see the resemblance to a hollow tube and think it is misleading. As the article that Common Sense posted makes clear if the core has a perimeter wall of concrete this would make it a “Tube within a tube”. He posted a Chinese FEA study that treats it as a “Tube within a Tube” and it fails in the simulation. The study is a joke however they model the WTC as a “Tube within a Tube”. That is what Common Sense has been trying so hard to get me to comment on so he can claim an FEA study shows the failure of the WTC.
Foxx referred to himself as a former "skulker", while making some very good points as to why it may be of value to continue arguing the case in a thread such as this.
Now I have a question for you. Do you think this thread on physorg.com is the optimal way to have the issue debated by serious scientists? Please tell us your reasons.
If you are talking to me of course not. I have learned a great deal from this thread however I also get tired of the spamming and disinformation. People like Arthur do unintentionally bring valuable and usually well referenced information. The amount of disinformation on the subject is staggering and everyone needs to sort through the BS. Foxx obviously has good information even though I don’t agree with everything he post. Your posts are concise and good for people who don’t necessarily understand the technical aspects of some papers. Gordon’s are excellent and that is why the disinformation people tend to ignored him. If Common Sense posted accurate information and stopped spamming it would not be so frustrating.
As I understand it The Scholars for Truth have a forum, you just need to be approved. I am sure the information is higher caliber and better researched. With the political climate in the country I really would not want my name published even though they let non- scholars join..
As far as the “tube within a tube”, if everyone agrees the core resembles a hollow tube and exhibits the characteristics of this, call it what you want (it definitely is in publications). I personally do not see the resemblance to a hollow tube and think it is misleading. As the article that Common Sense posted makes clear if the core has a perimeter wall of concrete this would make it a “Tube within a tube”. He posted a Chinese FEA study that treats it as a “Tube within a Tube” and it fails in the simulation. The study is a joke however they model the WTC as a “Tube within a Tube”. That is what Common Sense has been trying so hard to get me to comment on so he can claim an FEA study shows the failure of the WTC.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 02:35 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 02:06 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 2 2006, 06:41 AM)
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
Unless they do an analysis themselves, how could they possibly prove NIST's hand-waiving statement wrong? All they could say is, "Well, our hand-waiving disagrees with your hand-waiving. So you're wrong, and we're right."
NIST's intuition is no more falsifiable than anybody else's.*
And this is also ignoring all the evidence (much of it extraordinary) and phenomena which NIST just ignored, which clearly points away from the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale.
* I suppose it is in one sense - if you could hook them up to lie detectors to see if they even believed their own tripe - you could falsify their intuition in this way. I.e., by proving that it wasn't even that, and instead was just a bald-faced lie.
You know, like their BIG LIE that
NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found
They could easily replicate the controlled experiments and the computer modeling. It seems the only hand waving here is being done by you. "No I can't replicate the experiments!"
Read it again:
They could easily replicate the controlled experiments and the computer modeling. It seems the only hand waving here is being done by you. "No I can't replicate the experiments!"
Read it again:
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."
There was no computer modeling of the "global collapse" that NIST waives their hands about, much less one that matched the characteristics of the collapses that were observed, that point away from the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale.
As far as "experiments" to prove "global collapse ensuing" being inevitable, the most important "experiments", by far, would be large scale, FEA computer modeling. By it's very nature, any experiement would be done in a lab, and couldn't prove or disprove the NIST'ian hand-waiving, by itself.
"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
Unless they do an analysis themselves, how could they possibly prove NIST's hand-waiving statement wrong? All they could say is, "Well, our hand-waiving disagrees with your hand-waiving. So you're wrong, and we're right."
NIST's intuition is no more falsifiable than anybody else's.*
And this is also ignoring all the evidence (much of it extraordinary) and phenomena which NIST just ignored, which clearly points away from the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale.
* I suppose it is in one sense - if you could hook them up to lie detectors to see if they even believed their own tripe - you could falsify their intuition in this way. I.e., by proving that it wasn't even that, and instead was just a bald-faced lie.
You know, like their BIG LIE that
QUOTE
NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found
They could easily replicate the controlled experiments and the computer modeling. It seems the only hand waving here is being done by you. "No I can't replicate the experiments!"
Read it again:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
NO EVIDENCE for a controlled demolition was found |
They could easily replicate the controlled experiments and the computer modeling. It seems the only hand waving here is being done by you. "No I can't replicate the experiments!"
Read it again:
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."
There was no computer modeling of the "global collapse" that NIST waives their hands about, much less one that matched the characteristics of the collapses that were observed, that point away from the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale.
As far as "experiments" to prove "global collapse ensuing" being inevitable, the most important "experiments", by far, would be large scale, FEA computer modeling. By it's very nature, any experiement would be done in a lab, and couldn't prove or disprove the NIST'ian hand-waiving, by itself.
Here is more on the LA fire...
8. Fire-resistive structures can maintain structural integrity if built w e l l .
The structural integrity of the building was a concern during and after the fire. Analysis revealed that no significant damage occurred to major structural elements. Part of this credit must go to the unusually good application of fire resisting materials on support members. The effects of this magnitude of fire on a less protected structure must be considered in plans review, inspections during construction, and developing codes.
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_...FEMA-report.htm
8. Fire-resistive structures can maintain structural integrity if built w e l l .
The structural integrity of the building was a concern during and after the fire. Analysis revealed that no significant damage occurred to major structural elements. Part of this credit must go to the unusually good application of fire resisting materials on support members. The effects of this magnitude of fire on a less protected structure must be considered in plans review, inspections during construction, and developing codes.
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_...FEMA-report.htm
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 04:47 PM)
Here is more on the LA fire...
8. Fire-resistive structures can maintain structural integrity if built w e l l .
The structural integrity of the building was a concern during and after the fire. Analysis revealed that no significant damage occurred to major structural elements. Part of this credit must go to the unusually good application of fire resisting materials on support members. The effects of this magnitude of fire on a less protected structure must be considered in plans review, inspections during construction, and developing codes.
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_...FEMA-report.htm
And as we all know, NIST believes that had the WTC towers insulation been intact, even with the plane impact and even with the fires, the towers most likely would have stood.
The fires were as bad in the WTC, its just the building was so large, the fires were so high up and it was a bright sunny day.
They compare it to the over-exposed NIGHT TIME pictures we see of fires 60 floors or closer to the ground and say, see, if it was burning like this....
Well WHAT WOULD MAKE IT BURN LESS intensely than these buildings?????
Arthur
8. Fire-resistive structures can maintain structural integrity if built w e l l .
The structural integrity of the building was a concern during and after the fire. Analysis revealed that no significant damage occurred to major structural elements. Part of this credit must go to the unusually good application of fire resisting materials on support members. The effects of this magnitude of fire on a less protected structure must be considered in plans review, inspections during construction, and developing codes.
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_...FEMA-report.htm
And as we all know, NIST believes that had the WTC towers insulation been intact, even with the plane impact and even with the fires, the towers most likely would have stood.
The fires were as bad in the WTC, its just the building was so large, the fires were so high up and it was a bright sunny day.
They compare it to the over-exposed NIGHT TIME pictures we see of fires 60 floors or closer to the ground and say, see, if it was burning like this....
Well WHAT WOULD MAKE IT BURN LESS intensely than these buildings?????
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 4 2006, 08:44 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 12:00 PM)
Also, FYI, Foxx and I had a PM exchange about (in part) the value of replying to the endless stream of distortionist and propangandistic posting, vs. reaching out to scientists directly.
Foxx referred to himself as a former "skulker", while making some very good points as to why it may be of value to continue arguing the case in a thread such as this.
Now I have a question for you. Do you think this thread on physorg.com is the optimal way to have the issue debated by serious scientists? Please tell us your reasons.
If you are talking to me of course not. I have learned a great deal from this thread however I also get tired of the spamming and disinformation. People like Arthur do unintentionally bring valuable and usually well referenced information. The amount of disinformation on the subject is staggering and everyone needs to sort through the BS. Foxx obviously has good information even though I don’t agree with everything he post. Your posts are concise and good for people who don’t necessarily understand the technical aspects of some papers. Gordon’s are excellent and that is why the disinformation people tend to ignored him. If Common Sense posted accurate information and stopped spamming it would not be so frustrating.
As I understand it The Scholars for Truth have a forum, you just need to be approved. I am sure the information is higher caliber and better researched. With the political climate in the country I really don’t want my name published.
As far as the “tube within a tube”, if everyone agrees the core resembles a hollow tube and exhibits the characteristics of this, call it what you want (it definitely is in publications). I personally do not see the resemblance to a hollow tube and think it is misleading. As the article that Common Sense posted makes clear if the core has a perimeter wall of concrete this would make it a “Tube within a tube”. He posted a Chinese FEA study that treats it as a “Tube within a Tube” and it fails in the simulation. The study is a joke however they model the WTC as a “Tube within a Tube”. That is what Common Sense has been trying so hard to get me to comment on so he can claim an FEA study shows the failure of the WTC.
You can't find ONE post of mine which isn't in response to someone else either spamming or repeating the same question over and over. NOT ONE!
Make my day...
If you can stop Brian or Foxx from repeating the same spam you can stop me. I didn't hear you say anything when Brian said he would post something 4 times a day...
If people would be fair and not insult I would treat everyone like I treated Observer.
Foxx referred to himself as a former "skulker", while making some very good points as to why it may be of value to continue arguing the case in a thread such as this.
Now I have a question for you. Do you think this thread on physorg.com is the optimal way to have the issue debated by serious scientists? Please tell us your reasons.
If you are talking to me of course not. I have learned a great deal from this thread however I also get tired of the spamming and disinformation. People like Arthur do unintentionally bring valuable and usually well referenced information. The amount of disinformation on the subject is staggering and everyone needs to sort through the BS. Foxx obviously has good information even though I don’t agree with everything he post. Your posts are concise and good for people who don’t necessarily understand the technical aspects of some papers. Gordon’s are excellent and that is why the disinformation people tend to ignored him. If Common Sense posted accurate information and stopped spamming it would not be so frustrating.
As I understand it The Scholars for Truth have a forum, you just need to be approved. I am sure the information is higher caliber and better researched. With the political climate in the country I really don’t want my name published.
As far as the “tube within a tube”, if everyone agrees the core resembles a hollow tube and exhibits the characteristics of this, call it what you want (it definitely is in publications). I personally do not see the resemblance to a hollow tube and think it is misleading. As the article that Common Sense posted makes clear if the core has a perimeter wall of concrete this would make it a “Tube within a tube”. He posted a Chinese FEA study that treats it as a “Tube within a Tube” and it fails in the simulation. The study is a joke however they model the WTC as a “Tube within a Tube”. That is what Common Sense has been trying so hard to get me to comment on so he can claim an FEA study shows the failure of the WTC.
You can't find ONE post of mine which isn't in response to someone else either spamming or repeating the same question over and over. NOT ONE!
Make my day...
If you can stop Brian or Foxx from repeating the same spam you can stop me. I didn't hear you say anything when Brian said he would post something 4 times a day...
If people would be fair and not insult I would treat everyone like I treated Observer.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2006, 08:54 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 04:47 PM)
Here is more on the LA fire...
8. Fire-resistive structures can maintain structural integrity if built w e l l .
The structural integrity of the building was a concern during and after the fire. Analysis revealed that no significant damage occurred to major structural elements. Part of this credit must go to the unusually good application of fire resisting materials on support members. The effects of this magnitude of fire on a less protected structure must be considered in plans review, inspections during construction, and developing codes.
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_...FEMA-report.htm
And as we all know, NIST believes that had the WTC towers insulation been intact, even with the plane impact and even with the fires, the towers most likely would have stood.
The fires were as bad in the WTC, its just the building was so large, the fires were so high up and it was a bright sunny day.
They compare it to the over-exposed NIGHT TIME pictures we see of fires 60 floors or closer to the ground and say, see, if it was burning like this....
Well WHAT WOULD MAKE IT BURN LESS intensely than these buildings?????
Arthur
Next will be "Yeah but what about Building 7?" That building was hit by another. We don't know how bad the building was before the building weakened. We don't know about the sprinkler system either. Why didn't the sprinkler system cool the fire? Only the NIST final can shed light. But coming to a conclusion before the evidence is in isn't very scientific.
8. Fire-resistive structures can maintain structural integrity if built w e l l .
The structural integrity of the building was a concern during and after the fire. Analysis revealed that no significant damage occurred to major structural elements. Part of this credit must go to the unusually good application of fire resisting materials on support members. The effects of this magnitude of fire on a less protected structure must be considered in plans review, inspections during construction, and developing codes.
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_...FEMA-report.htm
And as we all know, NIST believes that had the WTC towers insulation been intact, even with the plane impact and even with the fires, the towers most likely would have stood.
The fires were as bad in the WTC, its just the building was so large, the fires were so high up and it was a bright sunny day.
They compare it to the over-exposed NIGHT TIME pictures we see of fires 60 floors or closer to the ground and say, see, if it was burning like this....
Well WHAT WOULD MAKE IT BURN LESS intensely than these buildings?????
Arthur
Next will be "Yeah but what about Building 7?" That building was hit by another. We don't know how bad the building was before the building weakened. We don't know about the sprinkler system either. Why didn't the sprinkler system cool the fire? Only the NIST final can shed light. But coming to a conclusion before the evidence is in isn't very scientific.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 08:46 PM)
There was no computer modeling of the "global collapse" that NIST waives their hands about, much less one that matched the characteristics of the collapses that were observed, that point away from the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale.
As far as "experiments" to prove "global collapse ensuing" being inevitable, the most important "experiments", by far, would be large scale, FEA computer modeling. By it's very nature, any experiement would be done in a lab, and couldn't prove or disprove the NIST'ian hand-waiving, by itself.
1) That doesn't prevent you from making your own computer model
2) Now you are saying the "Fairy tale" could not be disproven? How they gave you a degree only illustrates the sad state our education system is in...
More Conspiracy Theory excuses for 4 years worth of finger pointing and lunacy.
As far as "experiments" to prove "global collapse ensuing" being inevitable, the most important "experiments", by far, would be large scale, FEA computer modeling. By it's very nature, any experiement would be done in a lab, and couldn't prove or disprove the NIST'ian hand-waiving, by itself.
1) That doesn't prevent you from making your own computer model
2) Now you are saying the "Fairy tale" could not be disproven? How they gave you a degree only illustrates the sad state our education system is in...
More Conspiracy Theory excuses for 4 years worth of finger pointing and lunacy.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 4 2006, 08:44 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 12:00 PM)
Also, FYI, Foxx and I had a PM exchange about (in part) the value of replying to the endless stream of distortionist and propangandistic posting, vs. reaching out to scientists directly.
Foxx referred to himself as a former "skulker", while making some very good points as to why it may be of value to continue arguing the case in a thread such as this.
Now I have a question for you. Do you think this thread on physorg.com is the optimal way to have the issue debated by serious scientists? Please tell us your reasons.
If you are talking to me of course not. I have learned a great deal from this thread however I also get tired of the spamming and disinformation. People like Arthur do unintentionally bring valuable and usually well referenced information. The amount of disinformation on the subject is staggering and everyone needs to sort through the BS. Foxx obviously has good information even though I don’t agree with everything he post. Your posts are concise and good for people who don’t necessarily understand the technical aspects of some papers. Gordon’s are excellent and that is why the disinformation people tend to ignored him. If Common Sense posted accurate information and stopped spamming it would not be so frustrating.
As I understand it The Scholars for Truth have a forum, you just need to be approved. I am sure the information is higher caliber and better researched. With the political climate in the country I really don’t want my name published.
As far as the “tube within a tube”, if everyone agrees the core resembles a hollow tube and exhibits the characteristics of this, call it what you want (it definitely is in publications). I personally do not see the resemblance to a hollow tube and think it is misleading. As the article that Common Sense posted makes clear if the core has a perimeter wall of concrete this would make it a “Tube within a tube”. He posted a Chinese FEA study that treats it as a “Tube within a Tube” and it fails in the simulation. The study is a joke however they model the WTC as a “Tube within a Tube”. That is what Common Sense has been trying so hard to get me to comment on so he can claim an FEA study shows the failure of the WTC.
I became a member of Scholars for 911 Truth a few weeks after they began. I was told about the existence of a forum, but assumed it wasn't established yet.
I understand your concern about the political situation, but please keep in mind that there are reports that DU dust has blown from Iraq to as far as England. (No, I'm not sure if these have been verified.) The lunatics are in charge of the asylum, and if enough people fail to respond effectively, you may not want to survive in a fascist state with your children, or their children, having gross birth defects* and being slaves of the state. WW3 is also a distinct possibility. Thus, discrediting the US government and making their real role in terrorism, even against American citizens, known, might save us "all". If the lunatics are not exposed, they aren't going to be disempowered. (No, I'm not just talking about loonies from one political party, or another.)
From my personal point of view, even if DU was somehow confined to the borders of Iraq, this horror that my tax dollars are being used to help perpetuate is more important than what happens to me. If I end up in Guantanamo, and somehow a child in Iraq or Iran is spared, I consider that a fair trade. If you are interested in my attitude towards these things, (and also because somebody reading my posts might think I have something against Catholics, which I certainly don't), you might want to read the story "Perfect Joy is Only On the Cross", supposedly attributed to the Catholic saint, Saint Francis, in the Fioretti.
However, any activism at all is preferable to none, so I thank you for what efforts you make.
I haven't been following the "tube within a tube" posts much, so maybe I should have used a different example. Whether or not concrete was used in the core, though, in no way means that the building cannot be so described.
Thus, in my mind these are two separate issues, and the "tube within a tube" argument struck me as mostly a quibble over words. My apologies if I've misunderstood.
* Google "depleted uranium" and Iraq (on an empty stomach) You should eventually come to a picture of an Iraqi child born with a head growing out of it's head.
Foxx referred to himself as a former "skulker", while making some very good points as to why it may be of value to continue arguing the case in a thread such as this.
Now I have a question for you. Do you think this thread on physorg.com is the optimal way to have the issue debated by serious scientists? Please tell us your reasons.
If you are talking to me of course not. I have learned a great deal from this thread however I also get tired of the spamming and disinformation. People like Arthur do unintentionally bring valuable and usually well referenced information. The amount of disinformation on the subject is staggering and everyone needs to sort through the BS. Foxx obviously has good information even though I don’t agree with everything he post. Your posts are concise and good for people who don’t necessarily understand the technical aspects of some papers. Gordon’s are excellent and that is why the disinformation people tend to ignored him. If Common Sense posted accurate information and stopped spamming it would not be so frustrating.
As I understand it The Scholars for Truth have a forum, you just need to be approved. I am sure the information is higher caliber and better researched. With the political climate in the country I really don’t want my name published.
As far as the “tube within a tube”, if everyone agrees the core resembles a hollow tube and exhibits the characteristics of this, call it what you want (it definitely is in publications). I personally do not see the resemblance to a hollow tube and think it is misleading. As the article that Common Sense posted makes clear if the core has a perimeter wall of concrete this would make it a “Tube within a tube”. He posted a Chinese FEA study that treats it as a “Tube within a Tube” and it fails in the simulation. The study is a joke however they model the WTC as a “Tube within a Tube”. That is what Common Sense has been trying so hard to get me to comment on so he can claim an FEA study shows the failure of the WTC.
I became a member of Scholars for 911 Truth a few weeks after they began. I was told about the existence of a forum, but assumed it wasn't established yet.
I understand your concern about the political situation, but please keep in mind that there are reports that DU dust has blown from Iraq to as far as England. (No, I'm not sure if these have been verified.) The lunatics are in charge of the asylum, and if enough people fail to respond effectively, you may not want to survive in a fascist state with your children, or their children, having gross birth defects* and being slaves of the state. WW3 is also a distinct possibility. Thus, discrediting the US government and making their real role in terrorism, even against American citizens, known, might save us "all". If the lunatics are not exposed, they aren't going to be disempowered. (No, I'm not just talking about loonies from one political party, or another.)
From my personal point of view, even if DU was somehow confined to the borders of Iraq, this horror that my tax dollars are being used to help perpetuate is more important than what happens to me. If I end up in Guantanamo, and somehow a child in Iraq or Iran is spared, I consider that a fair trade. If you are interested in my attitude towards these things, (and also because somebody reading my posts might think I have something against Catholics, which I certainly don't), you might want to read the story "Perfect Joy is Only On the Cross", supposedly attributed to the Catholic saint, Saint Francis, in the Fioretti.
However, any activism at all is preferable to none, so I thank you for what efforts you make.
I haven't been following the "tube within a tube" posts much, so maybe I should have used a different example. Whether or not concrete was used in the core, though, in no way means that the building cannot be so described.
Thus, in my mind these are two separate issues, and the "tube within a tube" argument struck me as mostly a quibble over words. My apologies if I've misunderstood.
* Google "depleted uranium" and Iraq (on an empty stomach) You should eventually come to a picture of an Iraqi child born with a head growing out of it's head.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 02:58 AM)
Peeling away steel core columns
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
It's the only one I posted which took place during the collapse.
You can clearly see the steel columns peeling away to the left of the core.
The image above zoomed does not show core columns, it shows interior box columns. They are identified by the dimensions between "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" in the zoomed image of the tower top at construction below. The horizontal distance spanned by a floor beam between the columns below matches the distance between columns in the zoomed above. The same beams are seen in the image as well at the very bottom, all images of the spire at different stages.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
It's the only one I posted which took place during the collapse.
You can clearly see the steel columns peeling away to the left of the core.
The image above zoomed does not show core columns, it shows interior box columns. They are identified by the dimensions between "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" in the zoomed image of the tower top at construction below. The horizontal distance spanned by a floor beam between the columns below matches the distance between columns in the zoomed above. The same beams are seen in the image as well at the very bottom, all images of the spire at different stages.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 04:27 PM)
your "common sense" is so extraordinary that you can seriously make a statement like:
Never mind that there are no pictures that most people - and I do mean laymen, not physicists or other scientists - would describe as "raging fires".*
Which I guess is the CRUX of the problem.
Metamars apparently doesn't have any COMMON SENSE and even less SCIENTIFIC REASONING ability and thus must rely on PICTURES.
Sad really.
Metamars, think about it:
The building is FRIGGIN HUGE.
The fires were almost 1,000 feet up in the air.
From the angles MOST pictures were taken you could only see fires if they were at the WINDOWS. Which is 100 feet from the center of the building. Still there were plenty there, but there were plenty YOU COULDN'T SEE.
Take a look at the VAST CLOUDS of BLACK SMOKE pouring out of those buildings.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IS TURNING ALL OF THAT BUILDING'S CONTENTS INTO A RAPIDLY EXPANDING PLUME OF BLACK SMOKE?
Now consider the size of the floors and consider that there were NO FIREFIGHTING EFFORTS.
WHY DO YOU THINK THE FIRES WOULD NOT BECOME FULLY INVOLVED?
Arthur
QUOTE
For instance, I don't need a physics class to know their were "Raging fires" in a building just hit by a 767 at 500 miles an hour.
Never mind that there are no pictures that most people - and I do mean laymen, not physicists or other scientists - would describe as "raging fires".*
Which I guess is the CRUX of the problem.
Metamars apparently doesn't have any COMMON SENSE and even less SCIENTIFIC REASONING ability and thus must rely on PICTURES.
Sad really.
Metamars, think about it:
The building is FRIGGIN HUGE.
The fires were almost 1,000 feet up in the air.
From the angles MOST pictures were taken you could only see fires if they were at the WINDOWS. Which is 100 feet from the center of the building. Still there were plenty there, but there were plenty YOU COULDN'T SEE.
Take a look at the VAST CLOUDS of BLACK SMOKE pouring out of those buildings.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IS TURNING ALL OF THAT BUILDING'S CONTENTS INTO A RAPIDLY EXPANDING PLUME OF BLACK SMOKE?
Now consider the size of the floors and consider that there were NO FIREFIGHTING EFFORTS.
WHY DO YOU THINK THE FIRES WOULD NOT BECOME FULLY INVOLVED?
Arthur
As was the case with WTC 1, what follows is the result of an extensive, state-of-the-art reconstruction of the events that accompanied and followed the aircraft impact. Numerous facts and data were obtained, then combined with validated computer modeling to produce an account that is believed to be close to what actually occurred.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/computermodel.jpg
Other people have...
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm
Weidlinger also did computer modeling.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/computermodel.jpg
Other people have...
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm
Weidlinger also did computer modeling.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 05:44 PM)
The image above zoomed does not show core columns, it shows interior box columns. They are identified by the demensions between "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" in the zoomed image of the tower top at construction below.
I think we have a terminology problem.
Or at least I do.
We have discussed for 400+ pages and distinguished between Core Columns and Perimeter Columns.
You are now distinguishing between Box Columns and Core Columns.
To me, they are just different types of Core Columns.
Why do you make this distinction?
Arthur
I think we have a terminology problem.
Or at least I do.
We have discussed for 400+ pages and distinguished between Core Columns and Perimeter Columns.
You are now distinguishing between Box Columns and Core Columns.
To me, they are just different types of Core Columns.
Why do you make this distinction?
Arthur
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 09:44 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 02:58 AM)
Peeling away steel core columns
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
It's the only one I posted which took place during the collapse.
You can clearly see the steel columns peeling away to the left of the core.
The image above zoomed does not show core columns, it shows interior box columns. They are identified by the demensions between "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" in the zoomed image of the tower top at construction below. The horizontal distance spanned by a floor beam between the columns below matches the distance between columns in the zoomed above. The same beams are seen in the image as well at the very bottom, all images of the spire at different stages.
It's obvious to me it's the core. If you see something differnent then we will have to agree to disagree.
It's obvious to me it's the core. If you see something differnent then we will have to agree to disagree.
Agreed, we disagree.
You think this is the core but have not provided a diagram showing its structural elements
And I think the below is the core and that it is a rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced core of cast concrete shear walls.
and have provided a diagram of what I think the concrete core looked like.
I have also provided a photo from construction (below) that shows what steel columns I do know did exist. They were adjacent, outside of the concrete core shear wall and fastened to it. So calling them core columns would not be far off by any means, but they are outside the core.
Note the vertical steel seen inside is much smaller. Those are elevator guide rails that are fastened to the inside of the concrete core below. The major reason the WTC had such fast elevators is that the alignment was so constant inside the rigid concrete core.
The image I use to show the concrete core, you accept as only as a steel core comprised of 47 steel columns total. Other accounts from supposedly reputable sources only identify drywall sheeting between steel core columns (sic).
Maybe I’m not reasonable, but the top half of that tower supposedly fell, in its jumbled masses, over the top of the core as we see it in the second image from the top, and I cannot imagine that drywall can survive that at all, let alone form a relatively smooth arc free of any protruding columns. The picture at the top that you think is the core is taken from about the same distance as the picture I recognize as the concrete core from the 1990 documentary I watched. The size of the columns I identify as interior box columns is 14 inches thick and would be seen as about the same size in the concrete core photo 2nd down if the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns existed in the core area.
Just trying to get it clear.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
It's the only one I posted which took place during the collapse.
You can clearly see the steel columns peeling away to the left of the core.
The image above zoomed does not show core columns, it shows interior box columns. They are identified by the demensions between "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" in the zoomed image of the tower top at construction below. The horizontal distance spanned by a floor beam between the columns below matches the distance between columns in the zoomed above. The same beams are seen in the image as well at the very bottom, all images of the spire at different stages.
It's obvious to me it's the core. If you see something differnent then we will have to agree to disagree.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 02:58 AM)
It's obvious to me it's the core. If you see something differnent then we will have to agree to disagree.
Agreed, we disagree.
You think this is the core but have not provided a diagram showing its structural elements
And I think the below is the core and that it is a rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced core of cast concrete shear walls.
and have provided a diagram of what I think the concrete core looked like.
I have also provided a photo from construction (below) that shows what steel columns I do know did exist. They were adjacent, outside of the concrete core shear wall and fastened to it. So calling them core columns would not be far off by any means, but they are outside the core.
Note the vertical steel seen inside is much smaller. Those are elevator guide rails that are fastened to the inside of the concrete core below. The major reason the WTC had such fast elevators is that the alignment was so constant inside the rigid concrete core.
The image I use to show the concrete core, you accept as only as a steel core comprised of 47 steel columns total. Other accounts from supposedly reputable sources only identify drywall sheeting between steel core columns (sic).
Maybe I’m not reasonable, but the top half of that tower supposedly fell, in its jumbled masses, over the top of the core as we see it in the second image from the top, and I cannot imagine that drywall can survive that at all, let alone form a relatively smooth arc free of any protruding columns. The picture at the top that you think is the core is taken from about the same distance as the picture I recognize as the concrete core from the 1990 documentary I watched. The size of the columns I identify as interior box columns is 14 inches thick and would be seen as about the same size in the concrete core photo 2nd down if the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns existed in the core area.
Just trying to get it clear.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2006, 09:58 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 05:44 PM)
The image above zoomed does not show core columns, it shows interior box columns. They are identified by the demensions between "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" in the zoomed image of the tower top at construction below.
I think we have a terminology problem.
Or at least I do.
We have discussed for 400+ pages and distinguished between Core Columns and Perimeter Columns.
You are now distinguishing between Box Columns and Core Columns.
To me, they are just different types of Core Columns.
Why do you make this distinction?
Arthur
If the box columns are in the core and the core is incased in concrete as he says then pointing out box columns mean nothing to this debate anyway. Weither you use the term box or not ALL the core columns are completely exposed in the photo.
I think we have a terminology problem.
Or at least I do.
We have discussed for 400+ pages and distinguished between Core Columns and Perimeter Columns.
You are now distinguishing between Box Columns and Core Columns.
To me, they are just different types of Core Columns.
Why do you make this distinction?
Arthur
If the box columns are in the core and the core is incased in concrete as he says then pointing out box columns mean nothing to this debate anyway. Weither you use the term box or not ALL the core columns are completely exposed in the photo.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif
With all due respect, this representation means nothing since anyone can create one. Not I or even the other conspiracy theroist see it in the photo.
This is exactly what I see falling apart in the photo. It seems to be you who haven't produced evidence of a concrete core.
With all due respect, this representation means nothing since anyone can create one. Not I or even the other conspiracy theroist see it in the photo.
This is exactly what I see falling apart in the photo. It seems to be you who haven't produced evidence of a concrete core.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 10:30 PM)
If the box columns are in the core and the core is incased in concrete as he says then pointing out box columns mean nothing to this debate anyway. Weither you use the term box or not ALL the core columns are completely exposed in the photo.
I did not say as Common Sense has stated I've said. Curious that he waited until I said it very clear to get it wrong.
I will say it again.
The only columns in the core area are outside the core and they are fastened to the concrete core shear walls not encased in concrete.
I did not say as Common Sense has stated I've said. Curious that he waited until I said it very clear to get it wrong.
I will say it again.
The only columns in the core area are outside the core and they are fastened to the concrete core shear walls not encased in concrete.
Keep in mind, if the tower did pancake around the core you could predict much of the core still standing with debris injecting itself into the landings. (You could predict core collapse since we have already shown the core can not stand without the perimeter) Why wouldn't the debris you see coming out of the building not go in toward the core as well? Why would you think ejecta couldn't also enter the core?
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 06:29 PM)
Maybe I’m not reasonable, but the top half of that tower supposedly fell, in its jumbled masses, over the top of the core as we see it in the second image from the top, and I cannot imagine that drywall can survive that at all, let alone form a relatively smooth arc free of any protruding columns.
See: http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/835901...000f932a8c0____
From the Gypsum Board Industry defending the Shaft Wall Systems.
Why would they BOTHER if they were made out of Concrete.
This is not a self-serving gypsum industry response. In an article where statements railing against gypsum board systems are published, the author of record admits that “it is presumptuous to assume that [other material] enclosures would have survived the attacks”—a statement that is conveniently ignored further in the same article when the same author suggests that “more durable systems” (i.e. non-gypsum systems) “would have improved chances for survival for occupants.”
They ignore the concept that constructing the towers was facilitated by the use of gypsum board shaft wall systems. Light in weight and able to withstand the pressure exerted by high-speed elevator systems, gypsum board shaft wall systems, revolutionary in design for the period in which the WTC was constructed, were perfect for the tower project. Had they not been incorporated into the overall design, it is highly unlikely that the WTC towers would have been built to their finished height or achieved their finished dimensions. Other, more traditional, materials would have required thicker floor slabs and deeper footings due to their excessive weight. Simply stated, without the gypsum systems, the WTC would not have existed in the form in which we knew it.
Arthur
See: http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/835901...000f932a8c0____
From the Gypsum Board Industry defending the Shaft Wall Systems.
Why would they BOTHER if they were made out of Concrete.
This is not a self-serving gypsum industry response. In an article where statements railing against gypsum board systems are published, the author of record admits that “it is presumptuous to assume that [other material] enclosures would have survived the attacks”—a statement that is conveniently ignored further in the same article when the same author suggests that “more durable systems” (i.e. non-gypsum systems) “would have improved chances for survival for occupants.”
They ignore the concept that constructing the towers was facilitated by the use of gypsum board shaft wall systems. Light in weight and able to withstand the pressure exerted by high-speed elevator systems, gypsum board shaft wall systems, revolutionary in design for the period in which the WTC was constructed, were perfect for the tower project. Had they not been incorporated into the overall design, it is highly unlikely that the WTC towers would have been built to their finished height or achieved their finished dimensions. Other, more traditional, materials would have required thicker floor slabs and deeper footings due to their excessive weight. Simply stated, without the gypsum systems, the WTC would not have existed in the form in which we knew it.
Arthur
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 10:44 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 10:30 PM)
If the box columns are in the core and the core is incased in concrete as he says then pointing out box columns mean nothing to this debate anyway. Weither you use the term box or not ALL the core columns are completely exposed in the photo.
I did not say as Common Sense has stated I've said. Curious that he waited until I said it very clear to get it wrong.
I will say it again.
The only columns in the core area are outside the core and they are fastened to the concrete core shear walls not encased in concrete.
I stand corrected. My apologies. I glanced at the photo and assumed.
But you still haven't shown concrete.
I did not say as Common Sense has stated I've said. Curious that he waited until I said it very clear to get it wrong.
I will say it again.
The only columns in the core area are outside the core and they are fastened to the concrete core shear walls not encased in concrete.
I stand corrected. My apologies. I glanced at the photo and assumed.
But you still haven't shown concrete.
Fires at WTC 2
Well here's a brief foray from my files looking at just ONE fire on the north side of the WTC 2. All the photos have come from the same NIST document. The photos below show the 'progression' of that one fire. All photos are of the same fire at different times (except the last one which is of the NE corner fire)
Here is factual evidence of what I am saying (from the North face fires, specifically the one west of the Cold Spot which interestingly remained at AMBIENT temperatures.
9:04 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2904lg.jpg
9:07 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface907bzm.jpg
9:14
a closer shot (fire has not 'moved', but has died down dramatically)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2914zm1.jpg
9:27
the fire has flared slightly at the eastern edge, but remains in the same area - it hasn't spread horizontally in either direction (which one would expect to see with the intensity of the particular fire and other surrounding available fuel - very odd indeed. ???
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927zm.jpg
Here is the corresponding map from this time period. They have coloured in 8 windows on the 80th floor. Doesn't this misrepresent what we actually see in the photo?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927map.jpg
9:29 am
2 minutes after the previous picture. This is almost half an hour after this fire began. Why is it NOT moving laterally westward across the 79th floor. It's still just remaining in the same spot. Compare again the fire above on the 80th floor with NISTs map of this time period. The map tends to give the impression that the fire above on the 80th floor is raging across eight windows... Do you see that?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface929zm.jpg
9:32 am
Same thing again. One certainly must ask the question ---WHY--- is this fire, which is burning to the ceiling in that one area, just sitting there for a half-hour now not moving laterally westward along the 79th floor to available combustables in that area?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface932zm.jpg
9:41 am
A better picture taken almost 10 minutes later and the darn thing is STILL just sitting there. It's obviously sitting on a massive rubble pile, and after burning for 40 minutes must be generating a lot of heat, but it's NOT moving, not expanding, just raging away to the ceiling in that one localized area. Someone please explain to me why this fire has not moved westward along the 79th floor in 40 minutes !!!
Also not the area above to the east on the 80th floor. Does this look like it is raging across 8 windows?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941zm.jpg
Here is a closer shot of the fire above on the 80th floor. Does this look like it spans 8 windows? I haven't seen so far, ANY pictures to justify NISTs map of this exaggerated 8 window wide fire on the 80th floor at this location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941bzm.jpg
9:45 am
43 minutes after 'ignition' and this fire has not moved or expanded. It is certainly a 'raging' fire in that one location, but it is NOT spreading westward across either the 79th or 80th floors. VERY strange fire-behaviour if you ask me. Why is this NOT spreading to available fuel westward ? It's almost like some kind of cold fire. It burns on the rubble fire, but doesn't ignite office contents to the west.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945zm.jpg
Now lets look at the NIST map for this time period. Where does NIST get the idea that the fire has progressed westward on both the 79th and 80th floors. They say the 79th fire has expanded west to 79-224. Where have YOU seen any evidence of that so far?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945map.jpg
9:46 am
This photo was taken exactly one minute later than the one above. It has the column numbers at the bottom. Do YOU see ANY evidence that this fire has expanded westerly across the floors as shown in the NIST map?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946zm.jpg
Oh, I'm SO SORRY... there I go trying to fool you again with my LIES. Upon closer inspection and enlarging the above image we find the following. Well, I guess NIST is 'justified in filling in all those windows. It certainly does look like that fire is raging westward after sitting in the same spot for over 40 minutes. Simple spot-fires I say. Where is the glowing from all those raging flames. Must be hidden by all the smoke?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946bzm.jpg
From the same picture here's the original fire. It certainly is dying down now. Still not spreading as one would expect to see in raging office fires.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg
9:48 am
3 minutes later. A closer shot. Now, although I'm sure I wouldn't want to be standing next to it trying to roast marshmallows... that is certainly no raging expanding fire racing about the interior of the building weakening every column in the area. Do you see aluminum melting off those exterior columns. It would have to be melting at around the same temperature those columns would be starting to buckle and bend. Why aren't the majority of those columns all buckling minutes before collapse after roasting in this 'raging inferno for over 40 minutes now.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface948.jpg
9:52 am
Uh... oh.... Now things are really getting out of control.
We have a 3 foot wide wall of flame coming out one of the windows reaching as high as the floor above.
Still don't see any evidence of the westward fire (those little glowing embers which we saw earlier) expanding and growing.
50 minutes after ignition... and still this fire has not moved off the debris pile and onto the other office furniture westward. Must have been quite a good firewall there. Does anyone else besides me think that it is very odd that this raging inferno has not raced across that north wall in all this time?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface952.jpg
9:53 am
Well lets forget about that fire and have a look at whats going on at the other NorthEast Fire at the corner.
Dang it... seems like the flames have died off and turned to molten metal.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface953.jpg
I have done the same analysis on all these fires in the south tower, and anyone can do it.
Nowhere do these fires expand and rage across walls like one would expect to see in a raging inferno that apparently had plenty of oxygen and fuel.
I hope you enjoyed these pictures. It took a heck of a lot of work capturing them from NIST seeing as how they don't allow you to save pictures from that particular document... I wonder why? Feel free to save them and pass around the web.
QUOTE
by arthur
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
Well here's a brief foray from my files looking at just ONE fire on the north side of the WTC 2. All the photos have come from the same NIST document. The photos below show the 'progression' of that one fire. All photos are of the same fire at different times (except the last one which is of the NE corner fire)
Here is factual evidence of what I am saying (from the North face fires, specifically the one west of the Cold Spot which interestingly remained at AMBIENT temperatures.
9:04 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2904lg.jpg
9:07 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface907bzm.jpg
9:14
a closer shot (fire has not 'moved', but has died down dramatically)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2914zm1.jpg
9:27
the fire has flared slightly at the eastern edge, but remains in the same area - it hasn't spread horizontally in either direction (which one would expect to see with the intensity of the particular fire and other surrounding available fuel - very odd indeed. ???
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927zm.jpg
Here is the corresponding map from this time period. They have coloured in 8 windows on the 80th floor. Doesn't this misrepresent what we actually see in the photo?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927map.jpg
9:29 am
2 minutes after the previous picture. This is almost half an hour after this fire began. Why is it NOT moving laterally westward across the 79th floor. It's still just remaining in the same spot. Compare again the fire above on the 80th floor with NISTs map of this time period. The map tends to give the impression that the fire above on the 80th floor is raging across eight windows... Do you see that?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface929zm.jpg
9:32 am
Same thing again. One certainly must ask the question ---WHY--- is this fire, which is burning to the ceiling in that one area, just sitting there for a half-hour now not moving laterally westward along the 79th floor to available combustables in that area?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface932zm.jpg
9:41 am
A better picture taken almost 10 minutes later and the darn thing is STILL just sitting there. It's obviously sitting on a massive rubble pile, and after burning for 40 minutes must be generating a lot of heat, but it's NOT moving, not expanding, just raging away to the ceiling in that one localized area. Someone please explain to me why this fire has not moved westward along the 79th floor in 40 minutes !!!
Also not the area above to the east on the 80th floor. Does this look like it is raging across 8 windows?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941zm.jpg
Here is a closer shot of the fire above on the 80th floor. Does this look like it spans 8 windows? I haven't seen so far, ANY pictures to justify NISTs map of this exaggerated 8 window wide fire on the 80th floor at this location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941bzm.jpg
9:45 am
43 minutes after 'ignition' and this fire has not moved or expanded. It is certainly a 'raging' fire in that one location, but it is NOT spreading westward across either the 79th or 80th floors. VERY strange fire-behaviour if you ask me. Why is this NOT spreading to available fuel westward ? It's almost like some kind of cold fire. It burns on the rubble fire, but doesn't ignite office contents to the west.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945zm.jpg
Now lets look at the NIST map for this time period. Where does NIST get the idea that the fire has progressed westward on both the 79th and 80th floors. They say the 79th fire has expanded west to 79-224. Where have YOU seen any evidence of that so far?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945map.jpg
9:46 am
This photo was taken exactly one minute later than the one above. It has the column numbers at the bottom. Do YOU see ANY evidence that this fire has expanded westerly across the floors as shown in the NIST map?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946zm.jpg
Oh, I'm SO SORRY... there I go trying to fool you again with my LIES. Upon closer inspection and enlarging the above image we find the following. Well, I guess NIST is 'justified in filling in all those windows. It certainly does look like that fire is raging westward after sitting in the same spot for over 40 minutes. Simple spot-fires I say. Where is the glowing from all those raging flames. Must be hidden by all the smoke?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946bzm.jpg
From the same picture here's the original fire. It certainly is dying down now. Still not spreading as one would expect to see in raging office fires.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg
9:48 am
3 minutes later. A closer shot. Now, although I'm sure I wouldn't want to be standing next to it trying to roast marshmallows... that is certainly no raging expanding fire racing about the interior of the building weakening every column in the area. Do you see aluminum melting off those exterior columns. It would have to be melting at around the same temperature those columns would be starting to buckle and bend. Why aren't the majority of those columns all buckling minutes before collapse after roasting in this 'raging inferno for over 40 minutes now.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface948.jpg
9:52 am
Uh... oh.... Now things are really getting out of control.
We have a 3 foot wide wall of flame coming out one of the windows reaching as high as the floor above.
Still don't see any evidence of the westward fire (those little glowing embers which we saw earlier) expanding and growing.
50 minutes after ignition... and still this fire has not moved off the debris pile and onto the other office furniture westward. Must have been quite a good firewall there. Does anyone else besides me think that it is very odd that this raging inferno has not raced across that north wall in all this time?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface952.jpg
9:53 am
Well lets forget about that fire and have a look at whats going on at the other NorthEast Fire at the corner.
Dang it... seems like the flames have died off and turned to molten metal.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface953.jpg
I have done the same analysis on all these fires in the south tower, and anyone can do it.
Nowhere do these fires expand and rage across walls like one would expect to see in a raging inferno that apparently had plenty of oxygen and fuel.
I hope you enjoyed these pictures. It took a heck of a lot of work capturing them from NIST seeing as how they don't allow you to save pictures from that particular document... I wonder why? Feel free to save them and pass around the web.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 11:00 PM)
Fires at WTC 2
Well here's a brief foray from my files looking at just ONE fire on the north side of the WTC 2. All the photos have come from the same NIST document. The photos below show the 'progression' of that one fire. All photos are of the same fire at different times (except the last one which is of the NE corner fire)
Here is factual evidence of what I am saying (from the North face fires, specifically the one west of the Cold Spot which interestingly remained at AMBIENT temperatures.
9:04 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2904lg.jpg
9:07 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface907bzm.jpg
9:14
a closer shot (fire has not 'moved', but has died down dramatically)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2914zm1.jpg
9:27
the fire has flared slightly at the eastern edge, but remains in the same area - it hasn't spread horizontally in either direction (which one would expect to see with the intensity of the particular fire and other surrounding available fuel - very odd indeed. ???
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927zm.jpg
Here is the corresponding map from this time period. They have coloured in 8 windows on the 80th floor. Doesn't this misrepresent what we actually see in the photo?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927map.jpg
9:29 am
2 minutes after the previous picture. This is almost half an hour after this fire began. Why is it NOT moving laterally westward across the 79th floor. It's still just remaining in the same spot. Compare again the fire above on the 80th floor with NISTs map of this time period. The map tends to give the impression that the fire above on the 80th floor is raging across eight windows... Do you see that?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface929zm.jpg
9:32 am
Same thing again. One certainly must ask the question ---WHY--- is this fire, which is burning to the ceiling in that one area, just sitting there for a half-hour now not moving laterally westward along the 79th floor to available combustables in that area?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface932zm.jpg
9:41 am
A better picture taken almost 10 minutes later and the darn thing is STILL just sitting there. It's obviously sitting on a massive rubble pile, and after burning for 40 minutes must be generating a lot of heat, but it's NOT moving, not expanding, just raging away to the ceiling in that one localized area. Someone please explain to me why this fire has not moved westward along the 79th floor in 40 minutes !!!
Also not the area above to the east on the 80th floor. Does this look like it is raging across 8 windows?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941zm.jpg
Here is a closer shot of the fire above on the 80th floor. Does this look like it spans 8 windows? I haven't seen so far, ANY pictures to justify NISTs map of this exaggerated 8 window wide fire on the 80th floor at this location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941bzm.jpg
9:45 am
43 minutes after 'ignition' and this fire has not moved or expanded. It is certainly a 'raging' fire in that one location, but it is NOT spreading westward across either the 79th or 80th floors. VERY strange fire-behaviour if you ask me. Why is this NOT spreading to available fuel westward ? It's almost like some kind of cold fire. It burns on the rubble fire, but doesn't ignite office contents to the west.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945zm.jpg
Now lets look at the NIST map for this time period. Where does NIST get the idea that the fire has progressed westward on both the 79th and 80th floors. They say the 79th fire has expanded west to 79-224. Where have YOU seen any evidence of that so far?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945map.jpg
9:46 am
This photo was taken exactly one minute later than the one above. It has the column numbers at the bottom. Do YOU see ANY evidence that this fire has expanded westerly across the floors as shown in the NIST map?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946zm.jpg
Oh, I'm SO SORRY... there I go trying to fool you again with my LIES. Upon closer inspection and enlarging the above image we find the following. Well, I guess NIST is 'justified in filling in all those windows. It certainly does look like that fire is raging westward after sitting in the same spot for over 40 minutes. Simple spot-fires I say. Where is the glowing from all those raging flames. Must be hidden by all the smoke?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946bzm.jpg
From the same picture here's the original fire. It certainly is dying down now. Still not spreading as one would expect to see in raging office fires.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg
9:48 am
3 minutes later. A closer shot. Now, although I'm sure I wouldn't want to be standing next to it trying to roast marshmallows... that is certainly no raging expanding fire racing about the interior of the building weakening every column in the area. Do you see aluminum melting off those exterior columns. It would have to be melting at around the same temperature those columns would be starting to buckle and bend. Why aren't the majority of those columns all buckling minutes before collapse after roasting in this 'raging inferno for over 40 minutes now.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface948.jpg
9:52 am
Uh... oh.... Now things are really getting out of control.
We have a 3 foot wide wall of flame coming out one of the windows reaching as high as the floor above.
Still don't see any evidence of the westward fire (those little glowing embers which we saw earlier) expanding and growing.
50 minutes after ignition... and still this fire has not moved off the debris pile and onto the other office furniture westward. Must have been quite a good firewall there. Does anyone else besides me think that it is very odd that this raging inferno has not raced across that north wall in all this time?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface952.jpg
9:53 am
Well lets forget about that fire and have a look at whats going on at the other NorthEast Fire at the corner.
Dang it... seems like the flames have died off and turned to molten metal.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface953.jpg
I have done the same analysis on all these fires in the south tower, and anyone can do it.
Nowhere do these fires expand and rage across walls like one would expect to see in a raging inferno that apparently had plenty of oxygen and fuel.
I hope you enjoyed these pictures. It took a heck of a lot of work capturing them from NIST seeing as how they don't allow you to save pictures from that particular document... I wonder why? Feel free to save them and pass around the web.
Now why did faux show such small fires after I showed this...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire2.htm
QUOTE
by arthur
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
Well here's a brief foray from my files looking at just ONE fire on the north side of the WTC 2. All the photos have come from the same NIST document. The photos below show the 'progression' of that one fire. All photos are of the same fire at different times (except the last one which is of the NE corner fire)
Here is factual evidence of what I am saying (from the North face fires, specifically the one west of the Cold Spot which interestingly remained at AMBIENT temperatures.
9:04 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2904lg.jpg
9:07 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface907bzm.jpg
9:14
a closer shot (fire has not 'moved', but has died down dramatically)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2914zm1.jpg
9:27
the fire has flared slightly at the eastern edge, but remains in the same area - it hasn't spread horizontally in either direction (which one would expect to see with the intensity of the particular fire and other surrounding available fuel - very odd indeed. ???
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927zm.jpg
Here is the corresponding map from this time period. They have coloured in 8 windows on the 80th floor. Doesn't this misrepresent what we actually see in the photo?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927map.jpg
9:29 am
2 minutes after the previous picture. This is almost half an hour after this fire began. Why is it NOT moving laterally westward across the 79th floor. It's still just remaining in the same spot. Compare again the fire above on the 80th floor with NISTs map of this time period. The map tends to give the impression that the fire above on the 80th floor is raging across eight windows... Do you see that?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface929zm.jpg
9:32 am
Same thing again. One certainly must ask the question ---WHY--- is this fire, which is burning to the ceiling in that one area, just sitting there for a half-hour now not moving laterally westward along the 79th floor to available combustables in that area?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface932zm.jpg
9:41 am
A better picture taken almost 10 minutes later and the darn thing is STILL just sitting there. It's obviously sitting on a massive rubble pile, and after burning for 40 minutes must be generating a lot of heat, but it's NOT moving, not expanding, just raging away to the ceiling in that one localized area. Someone please explain to me why this fire has not moved westward along the 79th floor in 40 minutes !!!
Also not the area above to the east on the 80th floor. Does this look like it is raging across 8 windows?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941zm.jpg
Here is a closer shot of the fire above on the 80th floor. Does this look like it spans 8 windows? I haven't seen so far, ANY pictures to justify NISTs map of this exaggerated 8 window wide fire on the 80th floor at this location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941bzm.jpg
9:45 am
43 minutes after 'ignition' and this fire has not moved or expanded. It is certainly a 'raging' fire in that one location, but it is NOT spreading westward across either the 79th or 80th floors. VERY strange fire-behaviour if you ask me. Why is this NOT spreading to available fuel westward ? It's almost like some kind of cold fire. It burns on the rubble fire, but doesn't ignite office contents to the west.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945zm.jpg
Now lets look at the NIST map for this time period. Where does NIST get the idea that the fire has progressed westward on both the 79th and 80th floors. They say the 79th fire has expanded west to 79-224. Where have YOU seen any evidence of that so far?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945map.jpg
9:46 am
This photo was taken exactly one minute later than the one above. It has the column numbers at the bottom. Do YOU see ANY evidence that this fire has expanded westerly across the floors as shown in the NIST map?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946zm.jpg
Oh, I'm SO SORRY... there I go trying to fool you again with my LIES. Upon closer inspection and enlarging the above image we find the following. Well, I guess NIST is 'justified in filling in all those windows. It certainly does look like that fire is raging westward after sitting in the same spot for over 40 minutes. Simple spot-fires I say. Where is the glowing from all those raging flames. Must be hidden by all the smoke?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946bzm.jpg
From the same picture here's the original fire. It certainly is dying down now. Still not spreading as one would expect to see in raging office fires.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg
9:48 am
3 minutes later. A closer shot. Now, although I'm sure I wouldn't want to be standing next to it trying to roast marshmallows... that is certainly no raging expanding fire racing about the interior of the building weakening every column in the area. Do you see aluminum melting off those exterior columns. It would have to be melting at around the same temperature those columns would be starting to buckle and bend. Why aren't the majority of those columns all buckling minutes before collapse after roasting in this 'raging inferno for over 40 minutes now.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface948.jpg
9:52 am
Uh... oh.... Now things are really getting out of control.
We have a 3 foot wide wall of flame coming out one of the windows reaching as high as the floor above.
Still don't see any evidence of the westward fire (those little glowing embers which we saw earlier) expanding and growing.
50 minutes after ignition... and still this fire has not moved off the debris pile and onto the other office furniture westward. Must have been quite a good firewall there. Does anyone else besides me think that it is very odd that this raging inferno has not raced across that north wall in all this time?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface952.jpg
9:53 am
Well lets forget about that fire and have a look at whats going on at the other NorthEast Fire at the corner.
Dang it... seems like the flames have died off and turned to molten metal.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface953.jpg
I have done the same analysis on all these fires in the south tower, and anyone can do it.
Nowhere do these fires expand and rage across walls like one would expect to see in a raging inferno that apparently had plenty of oxygen and fuel.
I hope you enjoyed these pictures. It took a heck of a lot of work capturing them from NIST seeing as how they don't allow you to save pictures from that particular document... I wonder why? Feel free to save them and pass around the web.
Now why did faux show such small fires after I showed this...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire2.htm
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 09:30 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 08:46 PM)
There was no computer modeling of the "global collapse" that NIST waives their hands about, much less one that matched the characteristics of the collapses that were observed, that point away from the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale.
As far as "experiments" to prove "global collapse ensuing" being inevitable, the most important "experiments", by far, would be large scale, FEA computer modeling. By it's very nature, any experiement would be done in a lab, and couldn't prove or disprove the NIST'ian hand-waiving, by itself.
1) That doesn't prevent you from making your own computer model
You haven't been paying attention to the part of the thread which dealt with the computer modeling. Nobody ever said that it would not have been computationally very expensive to model a global collapse.
What I complained about was not the lack of a soup to nuts simulation, but that the NIST bozos didn't even model slightly beyond their "collapse initiation", and furthermore, to save on CPU cycles, there are "obvious" ways they could have approached the problem to make this a practical endeavor, I believe. The word "obvious" is in quotes because of my essentially zero expertise here (I actually did take a course in numerical analysis 10 years ago, but that qualifies me for nothing, at this point.) I could be completely wrong about utilizing approximations (highly unlikely) or, what is more likely, it may turn out that even with suitable approximations, the computational expense still scales very poorly.
My solution is: if you need another $20 or 40 million, so be it.
As for me doing it on my PC, this is not realistic, at all.
2) Now you are saying the "Fairy tale" could not be disproven? How they gave you a degree only illustrates the sad state our education system is in...
More Conspiracy Theory excuses for 4 years worth of finger pointing and lunacy.
Perhaps I should have qualified my statement more. I don't see how looking a piece of a beam in a laboratory, could, by itself, disprove the NIST'ian hand waving. Remember, they deliberately don't look at/model all the anomalies associated with the collapse.
(Of course, if conclusive proof is found of some form of thermite, in sufficient quantities to do the deed, or some other demolition agent, we can change our minds about that, even in debates with skeptics who close their eyes to all the anomalies - except this one, of course.)
Thus, when I refer to "NIST'ian handwaiving", I mean the notion that "global collapse must inevitably follow local collapse", and ignoring the anomalies is understood. (Call this the "weak" form of their claim.)
If you open your eyes to the anomalies (call this the "strong" form of their claim), disproving the "NIST'ian handwaiving" is much easier. It would then imply that, e.g., not only did "global collapse ensue", but that "global collapse ensued, and it exhibited a high degree of symmetry, and it took only a few seconds longer than a free fall collapse would have, and it ejected great quantities of powder, as well as pieces of steel, laterally, with subsequent subterranean heat of 1200C, etc., etc.")
Since it's so important to show up the NIST report for the obfuscation that it is, I say "Disprove the NIST handwaiving in it's weak form, as well as it's strong form"
Doing the latter to every honest structural engineer's satisfaction, including those who choose to ignore the anomalies*, will almost certainly require elaborated FEA modeling.
*Yes, I realize that sounds contradictory, but human nature being what it is, it's certainly possible. Going with the status quo is considered a virtue in many fields, and tendencies to be conservative this way are not necessarily a sign of evil intentions.
I've heard that MD doctors are notoriously "conservative", which is one reason I avoid them.... In fact I once had a chat with a doctor and his son, also a doctor. This doctor complained about the high cost of chelation therapy, which at that time cost $3,000, and anectodal accounts indicated the potential for reducing arterial occlusion from 80% to 40%. This doctor was partial to open heart surgery, however, which was costing $30,000 at the time.
I found it amusing that he failed to see things my way, but I believe that he was blinded by his profession's mindset.
As far as "experiments" to prove "global collapse ensuing" being inevitable, the most important "experiments", by far, would be large scale, FEA computer modeling. By it's very nature, any experiement would be done in a lab, and couldn't prove or disprove the NIST'ian hand-waiving, by itself.
1) That doesn't prevent you from making your own computer model
You haven't been paying attention to the part of the thread which dealt with the computer modeling. Nobody ever said that it would not have been computationally very expensive to model a global collapse.
What I complained about was not the lack of a soup to nuts simulation, but that the NIST bozos didn't even model slightly beyond their "collapse initiation", and furthermore, to save on CPU cycles, there are "obvious" ways they could have approached the problem to make this a practical endeavor, I believe. The word "obvious" is in quotes because of my essentially zero expertise here (I actually did take a course in numerical analysis 10 years ago, but that qualifies me for nothing, at this point.) I could be completely wrong about utilizing approximations (highly unlikely) or, what is more likely, it may turn out that even with suitable approximations, the computational expense still scales very poorly.
My solution is: if you need another $20 or 40 million, so be it.
As for me doing it on my PC, this is not realistic, at all.
QUOTE
2) Now you are saying the "Fairy tale" could not be disproven? How they gave you a degree only illustrates the sad state our education system is in...
More Conspiracy Theory excuses for 4 years worth of finger pointing and lunacy.
Perhaps I should have qualified my statement more. I don't see how looking a piece of a beam in a laboratory, could, by itself, disprove the NIST'ian hand waving. Remember, they deliberately don't look at/model all the anomalies associated with the collapse.
(Of course, if conclusive proof is found of some form of thermite, in sufficient quantities to do the deed, or some other demolition agent, we can change our minds about that, even in debates with skeptics who close their eyes to all the anomalies - except this one, of course.)
Thus, when I refer to "NIST'ian handwaiving", I mean the notion that "global collapse must inevitably follow local collapse", and ignoring the anomalies is understood. (Call this the "weak" form of their claim.)
If you open your eyes to the anomalies (call this the "strong" form of their claim), disproving the "NIST'ian handwaiving" is much easier. It would then imply that, e.g., not only did "global collapse ensue", but that "global collapse ensued, and it exhibited a high degree of symmetry, and it took only a few seconds longer than a free fall collapse would have, and it ejected great quantities of powder, as well as pieces of steel, laterally, with subsequent subterranean heat of 1200C, etc., etc.")
Since it's so important to show up the NIST report for the obfuscation that it is, I say "Disprove the NIST handwaiving in it's weak form, as well as it's strong form"
Doing the latter to every honest structural engineer's satisfaction, including those who choose to ignore the anomalies*, will almost certainly require elaborated FEA modeling.
*Yes, I realize that sounds contradictory, but human nature being what it is, it's certainly possible. Going with the status quo is considered a virtue in many fields, and tendencies to be conservative this way are not necessarily a sign of evil intentions.
I've heard that MD doctors are notoriously "conservative", which is one reason I avoid them.... In fact I once had a chat with a doctor and his son, also a doctor. This doctor complained about the high cost of chelation therapy, which at that time cost $3,000, and anectodal accounts indicated the potential for reducing arterial occlusion from 80% to 40%. This doctor was partial to open heart surgery, however, which was costing $30,000 at the time.
I found it amusing that he failed to see things my way, but I believe that he was blinded by his profession's mindset.
Foxx,
Are you a TOTAL MORON?????
Did NIST EVER say they had posted ALL the pictures they had??????
Did NIST EVER say that they posted ALL the pictures that were needed to create the MAPS????
They had over 6000 pictures and hours and hours of videos.
They put pictures in the document to make certain POINTS, not to PROVE the map was accurate.
Sheesh.
Arthur
Are you a TOTAL MORON?????
Did NIST EVER say they had posted ALL the pictures they had??????
Did NIST EVER say that they posted ALL the pictures that were needed to create the MAPS????
They had over 6000 pictures and hours and hours of videos.
They put pictures in the document to make certain POINTS, not to PROVE the map was accurate.
Sheesh.
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 09:30 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 4 2006, 08:46 PM)
There was no computer modeling of the "global collapse" that NIST waives their hands about, much less one that matched the characteristics of the collapses that were observed, that point away from the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale.
As far as "experiments" to prove "global collapse ensuing" being inevitable, the most important "experiments", by far, would be large scale, FEA computer modeling. By it's very nature, any experiement would be done in a lab, and couldn't prove or disprove the NIST'ian hand-waiving, by itself.
1) That doesn't prevent you from making your own computer model
You haven't been paying attention to the part of the thread which dealt with the computer modeling. Nobody ever said that it would not have been computationally very expensive to model a global collapse.
What I complained about was not the lack of a soup to nuts simulation, but that the NIST bozos didn't even model slightly beyond their "collapse initiation", and furthermore, to save on CPU cycles, there are "obvious" ways they could have approached the problem to make this a practical endeavor, I believe. The word "obvious" is in quotes because of my essentially zero expertise here (I actually did take a course in numerical analysis 10 years ago, but that qualifies me for nothing, at this point.) I could be completely wrong about utilizing approximations (highly unlikely) or, what is more likely, it may turn out that even with suitable approximations, the computational expense still scales very poorly.
My solution is: if you need another $20 or 40 million, so be it.
As for me doing it on my PC, this is not realistic, at all.
2) Now you are saying the "Fairy tale" could not be disproven? How they gave you a degree only illustrates the sad state our education system is in...
More Conspiracy Theory excuses for 4 years worth of finger pointing and lunacy.
Perhaps I should have qualified my statement more. I don't see how looking a piece of a beam in a laboratory, could, by itself, disprove the NIST'ian hand waving. Remember, they deliberately don't look at/model all the anomalies associated with the collapse.
(Of course, if conclusive proof is found of some form of thermite, in sufficient quantities to do the deed, or some other demolition agent, we can change our minds about that, even in debates with skeptics who close their eyes to all the anomalies - except this one, of course.)
Thus, when I refer to "NIST'ian handwaiving", I mean the notion that "global collapse must inevitably follow local collapse", and ignoring the anomalies is understood. (Call this the "weak" form of their claim.)
If you open your eyes to the anomalies (call this the "strong" form of their claim), disproving the "NIST'ian handwaiving" is much easier. It would then imply that, e.g., not only did "global collapse ensue", but that "global collapse ensued, and it exhibited a high degree of symmetry, and it took only a few seconds longer than a free fall collapse would have, and it ejected great quantities of powder, as well as pieces of steel, laterally, with subsequent subterranean heat of 1200C, etc., etc.")
Since it's so important to show up the NIST report for the obfuscation that it is, I say "Disprove the NIST handwaiving in it's weak form, as well as it's strong form"
Doing the latter to every honest structural engineer's satisfaction, including those who choose to ignore the anomalies*, will almost certainly require elaborated FEA modeling.
*Yes, I realize that sounds contradictory, but human nature being what it is, it's certainly possible. Going with the status quo is considered a virtue in many fields, and tendencies to be conservative this way are not necessarily a sign of evil intentions.
I've heard that MD doctors are notoriously "conservative", which is one reason I avoid them.... In fact I once had a chat with a doctor and his son, also a doctor. This doctor complained about the high cost of chelation therapy, which at that time cost $3,000, and anectodal accounts indicated the potential for reducing arterial occlusion from 80% to 40%. This doctor was partial to open heart surgery, however, which was costing $30,000 at the time.
I found it amusing that he failed to see things my way, but I believe that he was blinded by his profession's mindset.
Do you have any evidence NIST didn't do computer modeling? What you've given me could be from an old NIST release and not from the final. I did a search on the final and I saw nothing saying they didn't complete the model from begining to end by it's release.
As far as "experiments" to prove "global collapse ensuing" being inevitable, the most important "experiments", by far, would be large scale, FEA computer modeling. By it's very nature, any experiement would be done in a lab, and couldn't prove or disprove the NIST'ian hand-waiving, by itself.
1) That doesn't prevent you from making your own computer model
You haven't been paying attention to the part of the thread which dealt with the computer modeling. Nobody ever said that it would not have been computationally very expensive to model a global collapse.
What I complained about was not the lack of a soup to nuts simulation, but that the NIST bozos didn't even model slightly beyond their "collapse initiation", and furthermore, to save on CPU cycles, there are "obvious" ways they could have approached the problem to make this a practical endeavor, I believe. The word "obvious" is in quotes because of my essentially zero expertise here (I actually did take a course in numerical analysis 10 years ago, but that qualifies me for nothing, at this point.) I could be completely wrong about utilizing approximations (highly unlikely) or, what is more likely, it may turn out that even with suitable approximations, the computational expense still scales very poorly.
My solution is: if you need another $20 or 40 million, so be it.
As for me doing it on my PC, this is not realistic, at all.
QUOTE
2) Now you are saying the "Fairy tale" could not be disproven? How they gave you a degree only illustrates the sad state our education system is in...
More Conspiracy Theory excuses for 4 years worth of finger pointing and lunacy.
Perhaps I should have qualified my statement more. I don't see how looking a piece of a beam in a laboratory, could, by itself, disprove the NIST'ian hand waving. Remember, they deliberately don't look at/model all the anomalies associated with the collapse.
(Of course, if conclusive proof is found of some form of thermite, in sufficient quantities to do the deed, or some other demolition agent, we can change our minds about that, even in debates with skeptics who close their eyes to all the anomalies - except this one, of course.)
Thus, when I refer to "NIST'ian handwaiving", I mean the notion that "global collapse must inevitably follow local collapse", and ignoring the anomalies is understood. (Call this the "weak" form of their claim.)
If you open your eyes to the anomalies (call this the "strong" form of their claim), disproving the "NIST'ian handwaiving" is much easier. It would then imply that, e.g., not only did "global collapse ensue", but that "global collapse ensued, and it exhibited a high degree of symmetry, and it took only a few seconds longer than a free fall collapse would have, and it ejected great quantities of powder, as well as pieces of steel, laterally, with subsequent subterranean heat of 1200C, etc., etc.")
Since it's so important to show up the NIST report for the obfuscation that it is, I say "Disprove the NIST handwaiving in it's weak form, as well as it's strong form"
Doing the latter to every honest structural engineer's satisfaction, including those who choose to ignore the anomalies*, will almost certainly require elaborated FEA modeling.
*Yes, I realize that sounds contradictory, but human nature being what it is, it's certainly possible. Going with the status quo is considered a virtue in many fields, and tendencies to be conservative this way are not necessarily a sign of evil intentions.
I've heard that MD doctors are notoriously "conservative", which is one reason I avoid them.... In fact I once had a chat with a doctor and his son, also a doctor. This doctor complained about the high cost of chelation therapy, which at that time cost $3,000, and anectodal accounts indicated the potential for reducing arterial occlusion from 80% to 40%. This doctor was partial to open heart surgery, however, which was costing $30,000 at the time.
I found it amusing that he failed to see things my way, but I believe that he was blinded by his profession's mindset.
Do you have any evidence NIST didn't do computer modeling? What you've given me could be from an old NIST release and not from the final. I did a search on the final and I saw nothing saying they didn't complete the model from begining to end by it's release.
Why aren't there more of our representative jumping out of their chairs at the ongoing information that continues to emerge from independent investigations of the 911 murders? How does 911 Commission Report keep escaping congressional scrutiny when a growing number of concerned citizens are becoming more and more irate over the findings of these independent investigations? Why doesn't our representation recognize that there are increasing numbers of key players (officials) emerging with their accounts of the 911 incineration of 3000 human beings? And that their accounts of the massacre are in direct conflict of the findings of the 911 Commission. Why has the 911 Commission Report been so lubricated to just slide into the Library of Congress non-fiction bookshelves when there is entirely too much reason to believe that the findings of the Commission conflict with almost all eyewitness reports, public official statements, countless independent documentaries, hundreds of independent articles written, and most of all the beliefs of millions of American citizens? Why are the numbers of our representatives who are actually beginning to question the event still only being counted in single digits? What the hell is going on down there? Isn't it as plain as the nose on your faces? We are not talking about a few minor discrepencies. We are not talking about a couple of mistaken identities. We are talking about one inconsistency after another. We are talking about what can only be termed as a endless series of lies.
We have reached a point where we, the citizens of the United States, have decided that it is NOT unpatriotic to question the government, especially where 911 is concerned. We are at the point where we are beginning to realize, again, that the elected officials in this country are not special in any way other than they have been elected to serve....NOT RULE!!! They work for US. They are not in charge. We are in charge. You are employed by US. And we reserve the right to fire any elected official when they begin to distort the priveleges of the position in which they were elected. The citizens of these United States are demanding that you do the job that you were hired to do.....question the findings of 911 Commission report in a direct, fearless, and comprehensive manner.
3000 of our people were mass murdered on 911. In a court of law, there can be no preponderence of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence that continues to surface on 911 was done by Middle Eastern terrorists. Aren't you going to take the word of former Ronald Reagan aide Paul Craig Roberts that the 911 Commission findings are at best questionable? Doesn't it scare you that the same man who honorably served under Ronald Reagen was recently quoted as saying the Oval Office is being occupied by a group of psychopaths? Doesn't it disturb you that Congessman Ron Paul (et al) have gone public to warn the citizens of this country that we are slipping into a dictatorship?
The key to solving the mass murder on 911 lies in WTC building 7. Why aren't you asking yourself how and why did this 47 story building cave in on itself when it was over 300 ft. from WTC1 and WTC2, did not take a direct hit of an aircraft of any type, and only had fires burning in several of the offices. Doesn't that bother you in the least? Doesn't it at least raise an eyebrow? Perhaps you could at least submit a change request to the Library of Congress to slide the 911 Commission report from the non-fiction section and slide it into a slot over in 'fiction'.
The 911 Comission Report has an awful familiar ring to it. Does the Warren Commission ring any bells? Do you suppose it was a single bullet that brought down WTC Building 7? Or do you suppose that implicating yet another Bush would get someone's feelings hurt?
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues...=ua_congressorg
We have reached a point where we, the citizens of the United States, have decided that it is NOT unpatriotic to question the government, especially where 911 is concerned. We are at the point where we are beginning to realize, again, that the elected officials in this country are not special in any way other than they have been elected to serve....NOT RULE!!! They work for US. They are not in charge. We are in charge. You are employed by US. And we reserve the right to fire any elected official when they begin to distort the priveleges of the position in which they were elected. The citizens of these United States are demanding that you do the job that you were hired to do.....question the findings of 911 Commission report in a direct, fearless, and comprehensive manner.
3000 of our people were mass murdered on 911. In a court of law, there can be no preponderence of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence that continues to surface on 911 was done by Middle Eastern terrorists. Aren't you going to take the word of former Ronald Reagan aide Paul Craig Roberts that the 911 Commission findings are at best questionable? Doesn't it scare you that the same man who honorably served under Ronald Reagen was recently quoted as saying the Oval Office is being occupied by a group of psychopaths? Doesn't it disturb you that Congessman Ron Paul (et al) have gone public to warn the citizens of this country that we are slipping into a dictatorship?
The key to solving the mass murder on 911 lies in WTC building 7. Why aren't you asking yourself how and why did this 47 story building cave in on itself when it was over 300 ft. from WTC1 and WTC2, did not take a direct hit of an aircraft of any type, and only had fires burning in several of the offices. Doesn't that bother you in the least? Doesn't it at least raise an eyebrow? Perhaps you could at least submit a change request to the Library of Congress to slide the 911 Commission report from the non-fiction section and slide it into a slot over in 'fiction'.
The 911 Comission Report has an awful familiar ring to it. Does the Warren Commission ring any bells? Do you suppose it was a single bullet that brought down WTC Building 7? Or do you suppose that implicating yet another Bush would get someone's feelings hurt?
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues...=ua_congressorg
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 11:02 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 11:00 PM)
Fires at WTC 2
Well here's a brief foray from my files looking at just ONE fire on the north side of the WTC 2. All the photos have come from the same NIST document. The photos below show the 'progression' of that one fire. All photos are of the same fire at different times (except the last one which is of the NE corner fire)
Here is factual evidence of what I am saying (from the North face fires, specifically the one west of the Cold Spot which interestingly remained at AMBIENT temperatures.
9:04 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2904lg.jpg
9:07 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface907bzm.jpg
9:14
a closer shot (fire has not 'moved', but has died down dramatically)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2914zm1.jpg
9:27
the fire has flared slightly at the eastern edge, but remains in the same area - it hasn't spread horizontally in either direction (which one would expect to see with the intensity of the particular fire and other surrounding available fuel - very odd indeed. ???
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927zm.jpg
Here is the corresponding map from this time period. They have coloured in 8 windows on the 80th floor. Doesn't this misrepresent what we actually see in the photo?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927map.jpg
9:29 am
2 minutes after the previous picture. This is almost half an hour after this fire began. Why is it NOT moving laterally westward across the 79th floor. It's still just remaining in the same spot. Compare again the fire above on the 80th floor with NISTs map of this time period. The map tends to give the impression that the fire above on the 80th floor is raging across eight windows... Do you see that?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface929zm.jpg
9:32 am
Same thing again. One certainly must ask the question ---WHY--- is this fire, which is burning to the ceiling in that one area, just sitting there for a half-hour now not moving laterally westward along the 79th floor to available combustables in that area?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface932zm.jpg
9:41 am
A better picture taken almost 10 minutes later and the darn thing is STILL just sitting there. It's obviously sitting on a massive rubble pile, and after burning for 40 minutes must be generating a lot of heat, but it's NOT moving, not expanding, just raging away to the ceiling in that one localized area. Someone please explain to me why this fire has not moved westward along the 79th floor in 40 minutes !!!
Also not the area above to the east on the 80th floor. Does this look like it is raging across 8 windows?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941zm.jpg
Here is a closer shot of the fire above on the 80th floor. Does this look like it spans 8 windows? I haven't seen so far, ANY pictures to justify NISTs map of this exaggerated 8 window wide fire on the 80th floor at this location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941bzm.jpg
9:45 am
43 minutes after 'ignition' and this fire has not moved or expanded. It is certainly a 'raging' fire in that one location, but it is NOT spreading westward across either the 79th or 80th floors. VERY strange fire-behaviour if you ask me. Why is this NOT spreading to available fuel westward ? It's almost like some kind of cold fire. It burns on the rubble fire, but doesn't ignite office contents to the west.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945zm.jpg
Now lets look at the NIST map for this time period. Where does NIST get the idea that the fire has progressed westward on both the 79th and 80th floors. They say the 79th fire has expanded west to 79-224. Where have YOU seen any evidence of that so far?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945map.jpg
9:46 am
This photo was taken exactly one minute later than the one above. It has the column numbers at the bottom. Do YOU see ANY evidence that this fire has expanded westerly across the floors as shown in the NIST map?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946zm.jpg
Oh, I'm SO SORRY... there I go trying to fool you again with my LIES. Upon closer inspection and enlarging the above image we find the following. Well, I guess NIST is 'justified in filling in all those windows. It certainly does look like that fire is raging westward after sitting in the same spot for over 40 minutes. Simple spot-fires I say. Where is the glowing from all those raging flames. Must be hidden by all the smoke?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946bzm.jpg
From the same picture here's the original fire. It certainly is dying down now. Still not spreading as one would expect to see in raging office fires.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg
9:48 am
3 minutes later. A closer shot. Now, although I'm sure I wouldn't want to be standing next to it trying to roast marshmallows... that is certainly no raging expanding fire racing about the interior of the building weakening every column in the area. Do you see aluminum melting off those exterior columns. It would have to be melting at around the same temperature those columns would be starting to buckle and bend. Why aren't the majority of those columns all buckling minutes before collapse after roasting in this 'raging inferno for over 40 minutes now.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface948.jpg
9:52 am
Uh... oh.... Now things are really getting out of control.
We have a 3 foot wide wall of flame coming out one of the windows reaching as high as the floor above.
Still don't see any evidence of the westward fire (those little glowing embers which we saw earlier) expanding and growing.
50 minutes after ignition... and still this fire has not moved off the debris pile and onto the other office furniture westward. Must have been quite a good firewall there. Does anyone else besides me think that it is very odd that this raging inferno has not raced across that north wall in all this time?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface952.jpg
9:53 am
Well lets forget about that fire and have a look at whats going on at the other NorthEast Fire at the corner.
Dang it... seems like the flames have died off and turned to molten metal.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface953.jpg
I have done the same analysis on all these fires in the south tower, and anyone can do it.
Nowhere do these fires expand and rage across walls like one would expect to see in a raging inferno that apparently had plenty of oxygen and fuel.
I hope you enjoyed these pictures. It took a heck of a lot of work capturing them from NIST seeing as how they don't allow you to save pictures from that particular document... I wonder why? Feel free to save them and pass around the web.
Now why did faux show such small fires after I showed this...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire2.htm
Well, that MIGHT be (if you had read the post) that I was presenting the evidence and sequence of events of just ONE fire. I am so sorry they look so small - that is a problem with the scale and distance they were shot from. In actual fact the North Fire that I focused on was about 30 - 40 feet wide with flames up the ceiling in that one area. Hardly a 'small' fire.
The important point IS that in that location (the fire to the right and lower than the corner fire)..., in over 50 minutes the fire did NOT move off the debris pile to surrounding 'fuel' of office contents next to it? Can you explain that?
The photo you post is of the EAST face, which I have not addressed yet. But you seem NOT to have noticed the time your photo was taken - 9:03:42
What you are seeing in those 'fires' is the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball. Check the photos a few minutes later once the fuel has completely burned off... whoops... where did those FIRES GO ? Just seemed to disappear.
Nice obfuscative and disinformational trick though, to post pictures like yours while avoiding the explanation I have just given.
Now show some pictures of that same area throughout the entire time just as I have done regarding the North fire.
Actually you can see the same effect (flaring) as the jet fuel burns off in the north fire in the first picture of my series.
QUOTE
by arthur
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
Well here's a brief foray from my files looking at just ONE fire on the north side of the WTC 2. All the photos have come from the same NIST document. The photos below show the 'progression' of that one fire. All photos are of the same fire at different times (except the last one which is of the NE corner fire)
Here is factual evidence of what I am saying (from the North face fires, specifically the one west of the Cold Spot which interestingly remained at AMBIENT temperatures.
9:04 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2904lg.jpg
9:07 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface907bzm.jpg
9:14
a closer shot (fire has not 'moved', but has died down dramatically)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2914zm1.jpg
9:27
the fire has flared slightly at the eastern edge, but remains in the same area - it hasn't spread horizontally in either direction (which one would expect to see with the intensity of the particular fire and other surrounding available fuel - very odd indeed. ???
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927zm.jpg
Here is the corresponding map from this time period. They have coloured in 8 windows on the 80th floor. Doesn't this misrepresent what we actually see in the photo?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927map.jpg
9:29 am
2 minutes after the previous picture. This is almost half an hour after this fire began. Why is it NOT moving laterally westward across the 79th floor. It's still just remaining in the same spot. Compare again the fire above on the 80th floor with NISTs map of this time period. The map tends to give the impression that the fire above on the 80th floor is raging across eight windows... Do you see that?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface929zm.jpg
9:32 am
Same thing again. One certainly must ask the question ---WHY--- is this fire, which is burning to the ceiling in that one area, just sitting there for a half-hour now not moving laterally westward along the 79th floor to available combustables in that area?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface932zm.jpg
9:41 am
A better picture taken almost 10 minutes later and the darn thing is STILL just sitting there. It's obviously sitting on a massive rubble pile, and after burning for 40 minutes must be generating a lot of heat, but it's NOT moving, not expanding, just raging away to the ceiling in that one localized area. Someone please explain to me why this fire has not moved westward along the 79th floor in 40 minutes !!!
Also not the area above to the east on the 80th floor. Does this look like it is raging across 8 windows?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941zm.jpg
Here is a closer shot of the fire above on the 80th floor. Does this look like it spans 8 windows? I haven't seen so far, ANY pictures to justify NISTs map of this exaggerated 8 window wide fire on the 80th floor at this location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941bzm.jpg
9:45 am
43 minutes after 'ignition' and this fire has not moved or expanded. It is certainly a 'raging' fire in that one location, but it is NOT spreading westward across either the 79th or 80th floors. VERY strange fire-behaviour if you ask me. Why is this NOT spreading to available fuel westward ? It's almost like some kind of cold fire. It burns on the rubble fire, but doesn't ignite office contents to the west.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945zm.jpg
Now lets look at the NIST map for this time period. Where does NIST get the idea that the fire has progressed westward on both the 79th and 80th floors. They say the 79th fire has expanded west to 79-224. Where have YOU seen any evidence of that so far?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945map.jpg
9:46 am
This photo was taken exactly one minute later than the one above. It has the column numbers at the bottom. Do YOU see ANY evidence that this fire has expanded westerly across the floors as shown in the NIST map?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946zm.jpg
Oh, I'm SO SORRY... there I go trying to fool you again with my LIES. Upon closer inspection and enlarging the above image we find the following. Well, I guess NIST is 'justified in filling in all those windows. It certainly does look like that fire is raging westward after sitting in the same spot for over 40 minutes. Simple spot-fires I say. Where is the glowing from all those raging flames. Must be hidden by all the smoke?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946bzm.jpg
From the same picture here's the original fire. It certainly is dying down now. Still not spreading as one would expect to see in raging office fires.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg
9:48 am
3 minutes later. A closer shot. Now, although I'm sure I wouldn't want to be standing next to it trying to roast marshmallows... that is certainly no raging expanding fire racing about the interior of the building weakening every column in the area. Do you see aluminum melting off those exterior columns. It would have to be melting at around the same temperature those columns would be starting to buckle and bend. Why aren't the majority of those columns all buckling minutes before collapse after roasting in this 'raging inferno for over 40 minutes now.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface948.jpg
9:52 am
Uh... oh.... Now things are really getting out of control.
We have a 3 foot wide wall of flame coming out one of the windows reaching as high as the floor above.
Still don't see any evidence of the westward fire (those little glowing embers which we saw earlier) expanding and growing.
50 minutes after ignition... and still this fire has not moved off the debris pile and onto the other office furniture westward. Must have been quite a good firewall there. Does anyone else besides me think that it is very odd that this raging inferno has not raced across that north wall in all this time?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface952.jpg
9:53 am
Well lets forget about that fire and have a look at whats going on at the other NorthEast Fire at the corner.
Dang it... seems like the flames have died off and turned to molten metal.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface953.jpg
I have done the same analysis on all these fires in the south tower, and anyone can do it.
Nowhere do these fires expand and rage across walls like one would expect to see in a raging inferno that apparently had plenty of oxygen and fuel.
I hope you enjoyed these pictures. It took a heck of a lot of work capturing them from NIST seeing as how they don't allow you to save pictures from that particular document... I wonder why? Feel free to save them and pass around the web.
Now why did faux show such small fires after I showed this...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire2.htm
Well, that MIGHT be (if you had read the post) that I was presenting the evidence and sequence of events of just ONE fire. I am so sorry they look so small - that is a problem with the scale and distance they were shot from. In actual fact the North Fire that I focused on was about 30 - 40 feet wide with flames up the ceiling in that one area. Hardly a 'small' fire.
The important point IS that in that location (the fire to the right and lower than the corner fire)..., in over 50 minutes the fire did NOT move off the debris pile to surrounding 'fuel' of office contents next to it? Can you explain that?
The photo you post is of the EAST face, which I have not addressed yet. But you seem NOT to have noticed the time your photo was taken - 9:03:42
What you are seeing in those 'fires' is the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball. Check the photos a few minutes later once the fuel has completely burned off... whoops... where did those FIRES GO ? Just seemed to disappear.
Nice obfuscative and disinformational trick though, to post pictures like yours while avoiding the explanation I have just given.
Now show some pictures of that same area throughout the entire time just as I have done regarding the North fire.
Actually you can see the same effect (flaring) as the jet fuel burns off in the north fire in the first picture of my series.
That's the dishonest crap I'm talking about. Yet another clear example of the quality going into scholars for truth. Faux starts out by saying he wanted photos of the east face showing "raging fires" he then shows north face photos because they show smaller fires. And indeed one face didn't ever have a fire showing. At this point I'm happy he didn't produce photos from that side...
Faux, why don't you show us evidence the holocaust never happened. I'm sure it's on your computer somewhere...
Faux, why don't you show us evidence the holocaust never happened. I'm sure it's on your computer somewhere...
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 11:30 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 11:02 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 11:00 PM)
Fires at WTC 2
Well here's a brief foray from my files looking at just ONE fire on the north side of the WTC 2. All the photos have come from the same NIST document. The photos below show the 'progression' of that one fire. All photos are of the same fire at different times (except the last one which is of the NE corner fire)
Here is factual evidence of what I am saying (from the North face fires, specifically the one west of the Cold Spot which interestingly remained at AMBIENT temperatures.
9:04 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2904lg.jpg
9:07 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface907bzm.jpg
9:14
a closer shot (fire has not 'moved', but has died down dramatically)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2914zm1.jpg
9:27
the fire has flared slightly at the eastern edge, but remains in the same area - it hasn't spread horizontally in either direction (which one would expect to see with the intensity of the particular fire and other surrounding available fuel - very odd indeed. ???
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927zm.jpg
Here is the corresponding map from this time period. They have coloured in 8 windows on the 80th floor. Doesn't this misrepresent what we actually see in the photo?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927map.jpg
9:29 am
2 minutes after the previous picture. This is almost half an hour after this fire began. Why is it NOT moving laterally westward across the 79th floor. It's still just remaining in the same spot. Compare again the fire above on the 80th floor with NISTs map of this time period. The map tends to give the impression that the fire above on the 80th floor is raging across eight windows... Do you see that?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface929zm.jpg
9:32 am
Same thing again. One certainly must ask the question ---WHY--- is this fire, which is burning to the ceiling in that one area, just sitting there for a half-hour now not moving laterally westward along the 79th floor to available combustables in that area?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface932zm.jpg
9:41 am
A better picture taken almost 10 minutes later and the darn thing is STILL just sitting there. It's obviously sitting on a massive rubble pile, and after burning for 40 minutes must be generating a lot of heat, but it's NOT moving, not expanding, just raging away to the ceiling in that one localized area. Someone please explain to me why this fire has not moved westward along the 79th floor in 40 minutes !!!
Also not the area above to the east on the 80th floor. Does this look like it is raging across 8 windows?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941zm.jpg
Here is a closer shot of the fire above on the 80th floor. Does this look like it spans 8 windows? I haven't seen so far, ANY pictures to justify NISTs map of this exaggerated 8 window wide fire on the 80th floor at this location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941bzm.jpg
9:45 am
43 minutes after 'ignition' and this fire has not moved or expanded. It is certainly a 'raging' fire in that one location, but it is NOT spreading westward across either the 79th or 80th floors. VERY strange fire-behaviour if you ask me. Why is this NOT spreading to available fuel westward ? It's almost like some kind of cold fire. It burns on the rubble fire, but doesn't ignite office contents to the west.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945zm.jpg
Now lets look at the NIST map for this time period. Where does NIST get the idea that the fire has progressed westward on both the 79th and 80th floors. They say the 79th fire has expanded west to 79-224. Where have YOU seen any evidence of that so far?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945map.jpg
9:46 am
This photo was taken exactly one minute later than the one above. It has the column numbers at the bottom. Do YOU see ANY evidence that this fire has expanded westerly across the floors as shown in the NIST map?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946zm.jpg
Oh, I'm SO SORRY... there I go trying to fool you again with my LIES. Upon closer inspection and enlarging the above image we find the following. Well, I guess NIST is 'justified in filling in all those windows. It certainly does look like that fire is raging westward after sitting in the same spot for over 40 minutes. Simple spot-fires I say. Where is the glowing from all those raging flames. Must be hidden by all the smoke?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946bzm.jpg
From the same picture here's the original fire. It certainly is dying down now. Still not spreading as one would expect to see in raging office fires.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg
9:48 am
3 minutes later. A closer shot. Now, although I'm sure I wouldn't want to be standing next to it trying to roast marshmallows... that is certainly no raging expanding fire racing about the interior of the building weakening every column in the area. Do you see aluminum melting off those exterior columns. It would have to be melting at around the same temperature those columns would be starting to buckle and bend. Why aren't the majority of those columns all buckling minutes before collapse after roasting in this 'raging inferno for over 40 minutes now.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface948.jpg
9:52 am
Uh... oh.... Now things are really getting out of control.
We have a 3 foot wide wall of flame coming out one of the windows reaching as high as the floor above.
Still don't see any evidence of the westward fire (those little glowing embers which we saw earlier) expanding and growing.
50 minutes after ignition... and still this fire has not moved off the debris pile and onto the other office furniture westward. Must have been quite a good firewall there. Does anyone else besides me think that it is very odd that this raging inferno has not raced across that north wall in all this time?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface952.jpg
9:53 am
Well lets forget about that fire and have a look at whats going on at the other NorthEast Fire at the corner.
Dang it... seems like the flames have died off and turned to molten metal.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface953.jpg
I have done the same analysis on all these fires in the south tower, and anyone can do it.
Nowhere do these fires expand and rage across walls like one would expect to see in a raging inferno that apparently had plenty of oxygen and fuel.
I hope you enjoyed these pictures. It took a heck of a lot of work capturing them from NIST seeing as how they don't allow you to save pictures from that particular document... I wonder why? Feel free to save them and pass around the web.
Now why did faux show such small fires after I showed this...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire2.htm
Well, that MIGHT be (if you read the post) that I was presenting the evidence and sequence of events of just ONE fire. I am so sorry they look so small - that is a problem with the scale and distance they were shot from. In actual fact the North Fire that I focused on was about 30 - 40 feet wide with flames up the ceiling in that one area. Hardly a 'small' fire. The important point IS that in that location, in over 50 minutes the fire did NOT move off the debris pile to surrounding 'fuel' of office contents next to it? Can you explain that?
The photo you post is of the EAST face, which I have not addressed yet. But you seem NOT to have noticed the time your photo was taken - 9:03:42
What you are seeing in those 'fires' is the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball. Check the photos a few minutes later once the fuel has completely burned off... whoops... where did those FIRES GO ? Just seemed to disappear.
Nice obfuscative and disinformational trick though, to post pictures like yours while avoiding the explanation I have just given. Now show some pictures of that same area throughout the entire time just as I have done regarding the North fire. Actually you can see the same effect (flaring) as the jet fuel burns off in the first of my series.
Well don't stop lying now faux. Explain why you cropped them? Notice none of my photos are cropped. I could have cropped my photos and made them look more intence but that would be dishonest.
There was no dishonesty at all, I had asked arthur to show photos of the East side that he wanted to discuss... are you arthur too?
I already have all the photos of the north side, and as I said I will work my way right around the building with a comparable analysis.
Besides that, I gave an answer to the photo you posted from the east side.
It was taken at 9:03 and the flames seen are the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball.
If anyone is being dishonest it is you by posting pictures such as yours without a proper explanation.
As I said... post the pictures from the entire period in sequence, and it will clearly be seen that just minutes after that photo (which you claim are 'raging fires') the jet fuel has burned off, then show what happened to those fires.
Don't worry I will be doing it when I get around to that.
However doing an analysis doesn't just consist of quickly posting one picture and saying "See".
It takes a LOT of work, so don't expect to see that analysis all put together in the next few minutes ... or DAYS... it may be weeks before I get that done. I am still going through the north side fire analysis at this time.
There was no dishonesty at all, I had asked arthur to show photos of the East side that he wanted to discuss... are you arthur too?
I already have all the photos of the north side, and as I said I will work my way right around the building with a comparable analysis.
Besides that, I gave an answer to the photo you posted from the east side.
It was taken at 9:03 and the flames seen are the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball.
If anyone is being dishonest it is you by posting pictures such as yours without a proper explanation.
As I said... post the pictures from the entire period in sequence, and it will clearly be seen that just minutes after that photo (which you claim are 'raging fires') the jet fuel has burned off, then show what happened to those fires.
Don't worry I will be doing it when I get around to that.
However doing an analysis doesn't just consist of quickly posting one picture and saying "See".
It takes a LOT of work, so don't expect to see that analysis all put together in the next few minutes ... or DAYS... it may be weeks before I get that done. I am still going through the north side fire analysis at this time.
Well don't stop lying now faux. Explain why you cropped them? Notice none of my photos are cropped. I could have cropped my photos and made them look more intence but that would be dishonest.
NIST themselves have 'cropped' most of the photos THEY post in their document. Are THEY LYING?
I have only cropped out areas that were not important to the particular fire I focused on, in order to enlarge the area so what was actually going on during that fire could be seen better.
There is no dishonesty in that.
Man, I pity those you associate with in real life... how many times a day do you call them LIARS. Your constant ravings about lies, are nothing more than projections of your own character.
There was no dishonesty at all, I had asked arthur to show photos of the East side that he wanted to discuss... are you arthur too?
I already have all the photos of the north side, and as I said I will work my way right around the building with a comparable analysis.
Besides that, I gave an answer to the photo you posted from the east side.
It was taken at 9:03 and the flames seen are the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball.
If anyone is being dishonest it is you by posting pictures such as yours without a proper explanation.
As I said... post the pictures from the entire period in sequence, and it will clearly be seen that just minutes after that photo (which you claim are 'raging fires') the jet fuel has burned off, then show what happened to those fires.
Don't worry I will be doing it when I get around to that.
However doing an analysis doesn't just consist of quickly posting one picture and saying "See".
It takes a LOT of work, so don't expect to see that analysis all put together in the next few minutes ... or DAYS... it may be weeks before I get that done. I am still going through the north side fire analysis at this time.
There was no dishonesty at all, I had asked arthur to show photos of the East side that he wanted to discuss... are you arthur too?
I already have all the photos of the north side, and as I said I will work my way right around the building with a comparable analysis.
Besides that, I gave an answer to the photo you posted from the east side.
It was taken at 9:03 and the flames seen are the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball.
If anyone is being dishonest it is you by posting pictures such as yours without a proper explanation.
As I said... post the pictures from the entire period in sequence, and it will clearly be seen that just minutes after that photo (which you claim are 'raging fires') the jet fuel has burned off, then show what happened to those fires.
Don't worry I will be doing it when I get around to that.
However doing an analysis doesn't just consist of quickly posting one picture and saying "See".
It takes a LOT of work, so don't expect to see that analysis all put together in the next few minutes ... or DAYS... it may be weeks before I get that done. I am still going through the north side fire analysis at this time.
Well don't stop lying now faux. Explain why you cropped them? Notice none of my photos are cropped. I could have cropped my photos and made them look more intence but that would be dishonest.
NIST themselves have 'cropped' most of the photos THEY post in their document. Are THEY LYING?
I have only cropped out areas that were not important to the particular fire I focused on, in order to enlarge the area so what was actually going on during that fire could be seen better.
There is no dishonesty in that.
Man, I pity those you associate with in real life... how many times a day do you call them LIARS. Your constant ravings about lies, are nothing more than projections of your own character.
It doesn't matter who you said your lie to. Unfortunately for you it's all recorded for posterity
QUOTE
by arthur
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
The NIST report (and the accompanying one on WTC 1) are EXCEEDINGLY THROROUGH, yet Foxx dismisses it.
Can't wait to see his efforts in comparison.
Well here's a brief foray from my files looking at just ONE fire on the north side of the WTC 2. All the photos have come from the same NIST document. The photos below show the 'progression' of that one fire. All photos are of the same fire at different times (except the last one which is of the NE corner fire)
Here is factual evidence of what I am saying (from the North face fires, specifically the one west of the Cold Spot which interestingly remained at AMBIENT temperatures.
9:04 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2904lg.jpg
9:07 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface907bzm.jpg
9:14
a closer shot (fire has not 'moved', but has died down dramatically)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NorthWTC2914zm1.jpg
9:27
the fire has flared slightly at the eastern edge, but remains in the same area - it hasn't spread horizontally in either direction (which one would expect to see with the intensity of the particular fire and other surrounding available fuel - very odd indeed. ???
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927zm.jpg
Here is the corresponding map from this time period. They have coloured in 8 windows on the 80th floor. Doesn't this misrepresent what we actually see in the photo?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface927map.jpg
9:29 am
2 minutes after the previous picture. This is almost half an hour after this fire began. Why is it NOT moving laterally westward across the 79th floor. It's still just remaining in the same spot. Compare again the fire above on the 80th floor with NISTs map of this time period. The map tends to give the impression that the fire above on the 80th floor is raging across eight windows... Do you see that?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface929zm.jpg
9:32 am
Same thing again. One certainly must ask the question ---WHY--- is this fire, which is burning to the ceiling in that one area, just sitting there for a half-hour now not moving laterally westward along the 79th floor to available combustables in that area?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface932zm.jpg
9:41 am
A better picture taken almost 10 minutes later and the darn thing is STILL just sitting there. It's obviously sitting on a massive rubble pile, and after burning for 40 minutes must be generating a lot of heat, but it's NOT moving, not expanding, just raging away to the ceiling in that one localized area. Someone please explain to me why this fire has not moved westward along the 79th floor in 40 minutes !!!
Also not the area above to the east on the 80th floor. Does this look like it is raging across 8 windows?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941zm.jpg
Here is a closer shot of the fire above on the 80th floor. Does this look like it spans 8 windows? I haven't seen so far, ANY pictures to justify NISTs map of this exaggerated 8 window wide fire on the 80th floor at this location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface941bzm.jpg
9:45 am
43 minutes after 'ignition' and this fire has not moved or expanded. It is certainly a 'raging' fire in that one location, but it is NOT spreading westward across either the 79th or 80th floors. VERY strange fire-behaviour if you ask me. Why is this NOT spreading to available fuel westward ? It's almost like some kind of cold fire. It burns on the rubble fire, but doesn't ignite office contents to the west.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945zm.jpg
Now lets look at the NIST map for this time period. Where does NIST get the idea that the fire has progressed westward on both the 79th and 80th floors. They say the 79th fire has expanded west to 79-224. Where have YOU seen any evidence of that so far?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface945map.jpg
9:46 am
This photo was taken exactly one minute later than the one above. It has the column numbers at the bottom. Do YOU see ANY evidence that this fire has expanded westerly across the floors as shown in the NIST map?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946zm.jpg
Oh, I'm SO SORRY... there I go trying to fool you again with my LIES. Upon closer inspection and enlarging the above image we find the following. Well, I guess NIST is 'justified in filling in all those windows. It certainly does look like that fire is raging westward after sitting in the same spot for over 40 minutes. Simple spot-fires I say. Where is the glowing from all those raging flames. Must be hidden by all the smoke?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946bzm.jpg
From the same picture here's the original fire. It certainly is dying down now. Still not spreading as one would expect to see in raging office fires.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg
9:48 am
3 minutes later. A closer shot. Now, although I'm sure I wouldn't want to be standing next to it trying to roast marshmallows... that is certainly no raging expanding fire racing about the interior of the building weakening every column in the area. Do you see aluminum melting off those exterior columns. It would have to be melting at around the same temperature those columns would be starting to buckle and bend. Why aren't the majority of those columns all buckling minutes before collapse after roasting in this 'raging inferno for over 40 minutes now.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface948.jpg
9:52 am
Uh... oh.... Now things are really getting out of control.
We have a 3 foot wide wall of flame coming out one of the windows reaching as high as the floor above.
Still don't see any evidence of the westward fire (those little glowing embers which we saw earlier) expanding and growing.
50 minutes after ignition... and still this fire has not moved off the debris pile and onto the other office furniture westward. Must have been quite a good firewall there. Does anyone else besides me think that it is very odd that this raging inferno has not raced across that north wall in all this time?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface952.jpg
9:53 am
Well lets forget about that fire and have a look at whats going on at the other NorthEast Fire at the corner.
Dang it... seems like the flames have died off and turned to molten metal.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface953.jpg
I have done the same analysis on all these fires in the south tower, and anyone can do it.
Nowhere do these fires expand and rage across walls like one would expect to see in a raging inferno that apparently had plenty of oxygen and fuel.
I hope you enjoyed these pictures. It took a heck of a lot of work capturing them from NIST seeing as how they don't allow you to save pictures from that particular document... I wonder why? Feel free to save them and pass around the web.
Now why did faux show such small fires after I showed this...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire2.htm
Well, that MIGHT be (if you read the post) that I was presenting the evidence and sequence of events of just ONE fire. I am so sorry they look so small - that is a problem with the scale and distance they were shot from. In actual fact the North Fire that I focused on was about 30 - 40 feet wide with flames up the ceiling in that one area. Hardly a 'small' fire. The important point IS that in that location, in over 50 minutes the fire did NOT move off the debris pile to surrounding 'fuel' of office contents next to it? Can you explain that?
The photo you post is of the EAST face, which I have not addressed yet. But you seem NOT to have noticed the time your photo was taken - 9:03:42
What you are seeing in those 'fires' is the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball. Check the photos a few minutes later once the fuel has completely burned off... whoops... where did those FIRES GO ? Just seemed to disappear.
Nice obfuscative and disinformational trick though, to post pictures like yours while avoiding the explanation I have just given. Now show some pictures of that same area throughout the entire time just as I have done regarding the North fire. Actually you can see the same effect (flaring) as the jet fuel burns off in the first of my series.
Well don't stop lying now faux. Explain why you cropped them? Notice none of my photos are cropped. I could have cropped my photos and made them look more intence but that would be dishonest.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 05:55 AM)
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm
Forget about Schneibys blue lines... the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
I'm sorry, but I have eyes... post me a picture of ANY raging fires on the east face of the south tower which supports this 'map'.
It's all smoke and mirrors....
"Look... Look strain your eyes to see these 'hanging objects' "
...and never mind that there is NO evidence of FIRE in the photo, (outside of isolated pockets)... just as the firemen reported)
arsoNIST report ...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Least you forget what you wrote... Heh!
Forget about Schneibys blue lines... the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
I'm sorry, but I have eyes... post me a picture of ANY raging fires on the east face of the south tower which supports this 'map'.
It's all smoke and mirrors....
"Look... Look strain your eyes to see these 'hanging objects' "
...and never mind that there is NO evidence of FIRE in the photo, (outside of isolated pockets)... just as the firemen reported)
arsoNIST report ...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Least you forget what you wrote... Heh!
.
Hi all!
Regarding visible flames at windows: the saying, "It's only the Tip of the Iceberg" immediately springs to mind.
If the plane/office debris was 'heaped up' at various locations internally and also against the outer walls, then it is reasonable to conclude that the only flames visible from the outside would be those flames issuing from the outward-facing SIDES of those burning heaps; and that those flames from the 'top/inner' surfaces of the burning heaps would be going 'internally' UP through the broken floors/shafts, rather than OUT through the windows. And any opposite-side-of-building views of those inner flames would be obstructed by the 'core' and its OWN associated 'burning heaps' of plane/office materials....not to mention the thick smoke/dust.
Does it take a 'degree' from BYU (Brigham Young University...where 'Prof. Jones 'skulks') to see that 'common sense' possibility?
BTW, metamars, that 'degree' you have...where did you 'get' that from, and when, if one may ask?
RC.
.
Hi all!
Regarding visible flames at windows: the saying, "It's only the Tip of the Iceberg" immediately springs to mind.
If the plane/office debris was 'heaped up' at various locations internally and also against the outer walls, then it is reasonable to conclude that the only flames visible from the outside would be those flames issuing from the outward-facing SIDES of those burning heaps; and that those flames from the 'top/inner' surfaces of the burning heaps would be going 'internally' UP through the broken floors/shafts, rather than OUT through the windows. And any opposite-side-of-building views of those inner flames would be obstructed by the 'core' and its OWN associated 'burning heaps' of plane/office materials....not to mention the thick smoke/dust.
Does it take a 'degree' from BYU (Brigham Young University...where 'Prof. Jones 'skulks') to see that 'common sense' possibility?
BTW, metamars, that 'degree' you have...where did you 'get' that from, and when, if one may ask?
RC.
.
QUOTE
That's the dishonest crap I'm talking about. Yet another clear example of the quality going into scholars for truth. Faux starts out by saying he wanted photos of the east face showing "raging fires" he then shows north face photos because they show smaller fires....
There was no dishonesty at all, I had asked arthur to show photos of the East side that he wanted to discuss... are you arthur too?
I already have all the photos of the north side, and as I said I will work my way right around the building with a comparable analysis.
Besides that, I gave an answer to the photo you posted from the east side.
It was taken at 9:03 and the flames seen are the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball.
If anyone is being dishonest it is you by posting pictures such as yours without a proper explanation.
As I said... post the pictures from the entire period in sequence, and it will clearly be seen that just minutes after that photo (which you claim are 'raging fires') the jet fuel has burned off, then show what happened to those fires.
Don't worry I will be doing it when I get around to that.
However doing an analysis doesn't just consist of quickly posting one picture and saying "See".
It takes a LOT of work, so don't expect to see that analysis all put together in the next few minutes ... or DAYS... it may be weeks before I get that done. I am still going through the north side fire analysis at this time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's the dishonest crap I'm talking about. Yet another clear example of the quality going into scholars for truth. Faux starts out by saying he wanted photos of the east face showing "raging fires" he then shows north face photos because they show smaller fires.... |
There was no dishonesty at all, I had asked arthur to show photos of the East side that he wanted to discuss... are you arthur too?
I already have all the photos of the north side, and as I said I will work my way right around the building with a comparable analysis.
Besides that, I gave an answer to the photo you posted from the east side.
It was taken at 9:03 and the flames seen are the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball.
If anyone is being dishonest it is you by posting pictures such as yours without a proper explanation.
As I said... post the pictures from the entire period in sequence, and it will clearly be seen that just minutes after that photo (which you claim are 'raging fires') the jet fuel has burned off, then show what happened to those fires.
Don't worry I will be doing it when I get around to that.
However doing an analysis doesn't just consist of quickly posting one picture and saying "See".
It takes a LOT of work, so don't expect to see that analysis all put together in the next few minutes ... or DAYS... it may be weeks before I get that done. I am still going through the north side fire analysis at this time.
Well don't stop lying now faux. Explain why you cropped them? Notice none of my photos are cropped. I could have cropped my photos and made them look more intence but that would be dishonest.
NIST themselves have 'cropped' most of the photos THEY post in their document. Are THEY LYING?
I have only cropped out areas that were not important to the particular fire I focused on, in order to enlarge the area so what was actually going on during that fire could be seen better.
There is no dishonesty in that.
Man, I pity those you associate with in real life... how many times a day do you call them LIARS. Your constant ravings about lies, are nothing more than projections of your own character.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 5 2006, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE
That's the dishonest crap I'm talking about. Yet another clear example of the quality going into scholars for truth. Faux starts out by saying he wanted photos of the east face showing "raging fires" he then shows north face photos because they show smaller fires....
There was no dishonesty at all, I had asked arthur to show photos of the East side that he wanted to discuss... are you arthur too?
I already have all the photos of the north side, and as I said I will work my way right around the building with a comparable analysis.
Besides that, I gave an answer to the photo you posted from the east side.
It was taken at 9:03 and the flames seen are the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball.
If anyone is being dishonest it is you by posting pictures such as yours without a proper explanation.
As I said... post the pictures from the entire period in sequence, and it will clearly be seen that just minutes after that photo (which you claim are 'raging fires') the jet fuel has burned off, then show what happened to those fires.
Don't worry I will be doing it when I get around to that.
However doing an analysis doesn't just consist of quickly posting one picture and saying "See".
It takes a LOT of work, so don't expect to see that analysis all put together in the next few minutes ... or DAYS... it may be weeks before I get that done. I am still going through the north side fire analysis at this time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's the dishonest crap I'm talking about. Yet another clear example of the quality going into scholars for truth. Faux starts out by saying he wanted photos of the east face showing "raging fires" he then shows north face photos because they show smaller fires.... |
There was no dishonesty at all, I had asked arthur to show photos of the East side that he wanted to discuss... are you arthur too?
I already have all the photos of the north side, and as I said I will work my way right around the building with a comparable analysis.
Besides that, I gave an answer to the photo you posted from the east side.
It was taken at 9:03 and the flames seen are the residual burn-off of the jet-fuel fireball.
If anyone is being dishonest it is you by posting pictures such as yours without a proper explanation.
As I said... post the pictures from the entire period in sequence, and it will clearly be seen that just minutes after that photo (which you claim are 'raging fires') the jet fuel has burned off, then show what happened to those fires.
Don't worry I will be doing it when I get around to that.
However doing an analysis doesn't just consist of quickly posting one picture and saying "See".
It takes a LOT of work, so don't expect to see that analysis all put together in the next few minutes ... or DAYS... it may be weeks before I get that done. I am still going through the north side fire analysis at this time.
Well don't stop lying now faux. Explain why you cropped them? Notice none of my photos are cropped. I could have cropped my photos and made them look more intence but that would be dishonest.
NIST themselves have 'cropped' most of the photos THEY post in their document. Are THEY LYING?
I have only cropped out areas that were not important to the particular fire I focused on, in order to enlarge the area so what was actually going on during that fire could be seen better.
There is no dishonesty in that.
Man, I pity those you associate with in real life... how many times a day do you call them LIARS. Your constant ravings about lies, are nothing more than projections of your own character.
It doesn't matter who you said your lie to. Unfortunately for you it's all recorded for posterity
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 05:55 AM)
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm
the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
I'm sorry, but I have eyes... post me a picture of ANY raging fires on the east face of the south tower which supports this 'map'.
It's all smoke and mirrors....
"Look... Look strain your eyes to see these 'hanging objects' "
...and never mind that there is NO evidence of FIRE in the photo, (outside of isolated pockets)... just as the firemen reported)
arsoNIST report ...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Everything highlighted is a lie. Whither you said it to me or ADUO. Why a lie? Because you are the one who posted the link with the evidence. You SAW the same photos I posted. Yet you say they aren't there. No matter how you twist your explination you are yet again CAUGHT in your own web of lies. Heh!
As for cropping, why did you further crop them. Why don't you post the who photo as I did?
You are continuing the lie because I posted the photos from 9:07 to 9:58. A total of 15 photos! Heh!
the entire map of 'alleged fires' on the east face of WTC 2 is a myth.
Read the documents... follow the timeline... refer to the photo-documentary 'evidence' they present...
and you will find photo-documentary 'evidence' worthy of the pod-people.
The emperor HAS NO CLOTHES !!!
I'm sorry, but I have eyes... post me a picture of ANY raging fires on the east face of the south tower which supports this 'map'.
It's all smoke and mirrors....
"Look... Look strain your eyes to see these 'hanging objects' "
...and never mind that there is NO evidence of FIRE in the photo, (outside of isolated pockets)... just as the firemen reported)
arsoNIST report ...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Everything highlighted is a lie. Whither you said it to me or ADUO. Why a lie? Because you are the one who posted the link with the evidence. You SAW the same photos I posted. Yet you say they aren't there. No matter how you twist your explination you are yet again CAUGHT in your own web of lies. Heh!
As for cropping, why did you further crop them. Why don't you post the who photo as I did?
You are continuing the lie because I posted the photos from 9:07 to 9:58. A total of 15 photos! Heh!
The other lie is suggesting because the fireman saw little fire on the 78th floor that there was little fire on every floor. As the NIST map shows the fires were heaviest above the 78th floor. The photos bear this out.
There was to much traffic on my site but when it comes back this proves my point.
The firemans quote comes from 9:43 a.m.
There was to much traffic on my site but when it comes back this proves my point.
The firemans quote comes from 9:43 a.m.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2006, 09:58 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 05:44 PM)
The image above zoomed does not show core columns, it shows interior box columns. They are identified by the demensions between "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" in the zoomed image of the tower top at construction below.
I think we have a terminology problem.
Or at least I do.
We have discussed for 400+ pages and distinguished between Core Columns and Perimeter Columns.
You are now distinguishing between Box Columns and Core Columns.
To me, they are just different types of Core Columns.
Why do you make this distinction?
Arthur
A very valid issue Arthur. I should have addressed it earlier.
We do have a terminology problem. It's origin is with the mayor of NY
http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html
whos helping to keep a secret. The reason for the secret is that concrete doesn't heat and bend and fires are supposed to be the reason the towers came down. Also, after what happened, if people knew that the core was a concrete tube, they would want an explanation for all the sand and gravel,
SAND & GRAVEL
that used to be high strength concrete. Now, people don't care because most of the concrete in the tower is thought of as lightweight concrete which is not very strong by comparison.
So the perpetrators decided to bolster the ruse by removing the plans (the mayor was knighted for his contributions) then produced a quickie diagram.
and relied on a series of "experts" to present to the engineering community, what the tower consisted of structurally and explain why they came down. From that point out the engineering community was struggling to make sense of the collapse (sic).
Since there were columns near the core, certainly they have been referred to as core columns, probably by the builders themselves, because they were the closest columns to the core and the term "interior box column" is unwieldy, in the 1990 documentary they were strictly referred to as interior box columns, not just "box columns. And the perimeter walls were referred to as constructed of "box columns". The term "core" was strictly reserved for the concrete inner tube of the "tube in a tube" construction. The documentary focused on the concrete core as it was the most difficult part of the tower to construct.
Since the only plausible explanation that was not the truth was that fires heated and weakened steel columns causing the collapse and the word "columns was in use, the term "core column" was invented by the perpetrators was used to structurally define the metal columns they needed to exist within their ruse. To explain them in a somewhat logical fashion.
I do not know how long you've been researching 9-11 aspects but in 2002, the dimensions and descriptions of the supposed "steel core columns" were no where to be found. It was only after M. Moores F 9-11 that data started showing up that defined these columns.
It is a very good question you asked.
Here is a page with a series of links to usenet comments that were found regarding the concrete core.
http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html
I think we have a terminology problem.
Or at least I do.
We have discussed for 400+ pages and distinguished between Core Columns and Perimeter Columns.
You are now distinguishing between Box Columns and Core Columns.
To me, they are just different types of Core Columns.
Why do you make this distinction?
Arthur
A very valid issue Arthur. I should have addressed it earlier.
We do have a terminology problem. It's origin is with the mayor of NY
http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html
whos helping to keep a secret. The reason for the secret is that concrete doesn't heat and bend and fires are supposed to be the reason the towers came down. Also, after what happened, if people knew that the core was a concrete tube, they would want an explanation for all the sand and gravel,
SAND & GRAVEL
that used to be high strength concrete. Now, people don't care because most of the concrete in the tower is thought of as lightweight concrete which is not very strong by comparison.
So the perpetrators decided to bolster the ruse by removing the plans (the mayor was knighted for his contributions) then produced a quickie diagram.
and relied on a series of "experts" to present to the engineering community, what the tower consisted of structurally and explain why they came down. From that point out the engineering community was struggling to make sense of the collapse (sic).
Since there were columns near the core, certainly they have been referred to as core columns, probably by the builders themselves, because they were the closest columns to the core and the term "interior box column" is unwieldy, in the 1990 documentary they were strictly referred to as interior box columns, not just "box columns. And the perimeter walls were referred to as constructed of "box columns". The term "core" was strictly reserved for the concrete inner tube of the "tube in a tube" construction. The documentary focused on the concrete core as it was the most difficult part of the tower to construct.
Since the only plausible explanation that was not the truth was that fires heated and weakened steel columns causing the collapse and the word "columns was in use, the term "core column" was invented by the perpetrators was used to structurally define the metal columns they needed to exist within their ruse. To explain them in a somewhat logical fashion.
I do not know how long you've been researching 9-11 aspects but in 2002, the dimensions and descriptions of the supposed "steel core columns" were no where to be found. It was only after M. Moores F 9-11 that data started showing up that defined these columns.
It is a very good question you asked.
Here is a page with a series of links to usenet comments that were found regarding the concrete core.
http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 12:45 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2006, 09:58 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 05:44 PM)
The image above zoomed does not show core columns, it shows interior box columns. They are identified by the demensions between "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" in the zoomed image of the tower top at construction below.
I think we have a terminology problem.
Or at least I do.
We have discussed for 400+ pages and distinguished between Core Columns and Perimeter Columns.
You are now distinguishing between Box Columns and Core Columns.
To me, they are just different types of Core Columns.
Why do you make this distinction?
Arthur
A very valid issue Arthur. I should have addressed it earlier.
We do have a terminology problem. It's origin is with the mayor of NY
http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html
whos helping to keep a secret. The reason for the secret is that concrete doesn't heat and bend and fires are supposed to be the reason the towers came down. Also, after what happened, if people knew that the core was a concrete tube, they would want an explanation for all the sand and gravel,
SAND & GRAVEL
that used to be high strength concrete. Now, people don't care because most of the concrete in the tower is thought of as lightweight concrete which is not very strong by comparison.
So the perpetrators decided to bolster the ruse by removing the plans (the mayor was knighted for his contributions) then produced a quickie diagram.
and relied on a series of "experts" to present to the engineering community, what the tower consisted of structurally and explain why they came down. From that point out the engineering community was struggling to make sense of the collapse (sic).
Since there were columns near the core, certainly they have been referred to as core columns, probably by the builders themselves, because they were the closest columns to the core and the term "interior box column" is unwieldy, in the 1990 documentary they were strictly referred to as interior box columns, not just "box columns. And the perimeter walls were referred to as constructed of "box columns". The term "core" was strictly reserved for the concrete inner tube of the "tube in a tube" construction. The documentary focused on the concrete core as it was the most difficult part of the tower to construct.
Since the only plausible explanation that was not the truth was that fires heated and weakened steel columns causing the collapse and the word "columns was in use, the term "core column" was invented by the perpetrators was used to structurally define the metal columns they needed to exist within their ruse. To explain them in a somewhat logical fashion.
I do not know how long you've been researching 9-11 aspects but in 2002, the dimensions and descriptions of the supposed "steel core columns" were no where to be found. It was only after M. Moores F 9-11 that data started showing up that defined these columns.
It is a very good question you asked.
Here is a page with a series of links to usenet comments that were found regarding the concrete core.
http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html
I know you think the usenet text are evidence but personally I don't. In my view anyone can create a text file and say anything they want. Especially when we have so much evidence like fireman and others saying the core never had concrete reinforcement. Those are from more reliable sources IMHO.
Not to mention that's off a 911 site. Personally I have found them to be very unreliable as you can see...
I will have to respectfully agree to disagree once more. In my view you still have no evidence.
You call this fire? This is fire:
The intense heat and flames seem to have been totally blown out in this picture:
You call this fire? This is fire:
The intense heat and flames seem to have been totally blown out in this picture:
Hi trondh!
Quite apart from the huge plane and explosions damage and fireproofing removal etc, you DO ALSO realise the scale differences and the day/night differences between your compared cases of building fire, don't you?
You could literally put that little-building night-fire INSIDE the WTC tower, and you could still have missed it in all that smoke UNLESS it was right next to the outer walls.
And if you could have taken a NIGHT-time picture of whatever WTC fire WAS visible, you would have gotten as much a 'fiery' red-yellow picture of WTC fires/flames as in that small-building night-time picture.
You DO realise all these AND OTHER OBVIOUS 'unfair comparison' aspects, don't you?
And as for that 'fires' blown out thing. When a whole LOT of ASH and DUST and macerated materials from impact/fire damage gets suddenly and comprehensively dumped on the fire floors when the top of the building falls on those floors, don't you think that most of the air is BEING BLOWN SIDEWAYS/UP/DOWN and so starves the fires of Oxygen temporarily (until they re-flare later in the rubble on the ground)? What's so unusual about what happened? Please explain why even raging fires on those floors should not have been temporarily 'smothered' by all that ASH and dust etc we see being 'blown out' by the compression-expelled hot air/combustion-gases?
Cheers!
RC.
.
Perhaps you are sincere in your beliefs, but then how do you explain the series of articles from the Engineering News Record put together by 'Guardian'...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
Perhaps you are sincere in your beliefs, but then how do you explain the series of articles from the Engineering News Record put together by 'Guardian'...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
Individual columns in the lower core section, measuring 52 x 22 in. in plan, are formed of 5 and 3-in, plate into almost solid steel shafts that weigh up to 56 tons.
January 1, 1970.
-------------
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS
For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.
The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section.
April 2, 1964
We know that many studies were done during the design stages to address differential shortening between the columns.
And this is where I become a little suspicious of the concrete core theory
You can't build a structure that tall and make it sit there like a rock with no movement at all... (well, you could if you built it comparative to the construction methods used in the Empire State building - but then you would probably be talking 10 times what it cost to build the towers). {IMHO}
How much would it actually cost today to build the Great Pyamid of Giza? We can be Absolutely SURE that should a plane hit such a structure (no matter what the size & weight of the flying object was)... it wouldn't dent it... or make it move at all???
The structure must be able to 'move' within given limits.
Some may say "Yeah, but they sure weren't designed to take the impact of an aircraft".
CORRECTAMUNDO ! Give the man a prize.
Why would I design a structure strong enough to be hit with a baseball bat... when I already know that I have to design for much greater forces than that on that structure on a day-by-day basis.
In order for the building to move, you would need to build with materials that have great tensile and elastic strengths...(neither of which are concrete attributes).
the "Guardian" first published these series of articles from the Engineering News Report in 2002.
Why do you think he chose at that particular time to cache this information on the web?
He was smart enough to see that all the information was 'disappearing' on the web, (unfortunately for those responsible for the disappearing act) "Guardian" saw what was going on... and having his own hardcopies of the Engineering News Report, scanned them and posted them to the web to alert others of the cover-up going on.
But nowhere in these early reports do I see anything relevant to a re-inforced concrete core.
It is TRUE that the new towers are being designed with a concrete core. Research the 'NEW WTC 7 Construction'.
Many construction advances have occured since the 1960s. It's quite interesting how they have developed the pouring system for this new construction revolving around the core.
Some interesting analysis regarding the photos posted by Christophera, Hereward and others. I did find Arthurs pictures and analysis interesting.
--------
trondh & Mel --- nice...
short & sweet
But keeping to the point... like an arrow to the heart.
I think we have a terminology problem.
Or at least I do.
We have discussed for 400+ pages and distinguished between Core Columns and Perimeter Columns.
You are now distinguishing between Box Columns and Core Columns.
To me, they are just different types of Core Columns.
Why do you make this distinction?
Arthur
A very valid issue Arthur. I should have addressed it earlier.
We do have a terminology problem. It's origin is with the mayor of NY
http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html
whos helping to keep a secret. The reason for the secret is that concrete doesn't heat and bend and fires are supposed to be the reason the towers came down. Also, after what happened, if people knew that the core was a concrete tube, they would want an explanation for all the sand and gravel,
SAND & GRAVEL
that used to be high strength concrete. Now, people don't care because most of the concrete in the tower is thought of as lightweight concrete which is not very strong by comparison.
So the perpetrators decided to bolster the ruse by removing the plans (the mayor was knighted for his contributions) then produced a quickie diagram.
and relied on a series of "experts" to present to the engineering community, what the tower consisted of structurally and explain why they came down. From that point out the engineering community was struggling to make sense of the collapse (sic).
Since there were columns near the core, certainly they have been referred to as core columns, probably by the builders themselves, because they were the closest columns to the core and the term "interior box column" is unwieldy, in the 1990 documentary they were strictly referred to as interior box columns, not just "box columns. And the perimeter walls were referred to as constructed of "box columns". The term "core" was strictly reserved for the concrete inner tube of the "tube in a tube" construction. The documentary focused on the concrete core as it was the most difficult part of the tower to construct.
Since the only plausible explanation that was not the truth was that fires heated and weakened steel columns causing the collapse and the word "columns was in use, the term "core column" was invented by the perpetrators was used to structurally define the metal columns they needed to exist within their ruse. To explain them in a somewhat logical fashion.
I do not know how long you've been researching 9-11 aspects but in 2002, the dimensions and descriptions of the supposed "steel core columns" were no where to be found. It was only after M. Moores F 9-11 that data started showing up that defined these columns.
It is a very good question you asked.
Here is a page with a series of links to usenet comments that were found regarding the concrete core.
http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/chrisbrown/corerefs/index.html
I know you think the usenet text are evidence but personally I don't. In my view anyone can create a text file and say anything they want. Especially when we have so much evidence like fireman and others saying the core never had concrete reinforcement. Those are from more reliable sources IMHO.
Not to mention that's off a 911 site. Personally I have found them to be very unreliable as you can see...
I will have to respectfully agree to disagree once more. In my view you still have no evidence.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 08:08 PM)
There was no dishonesty at all, I had asked arthur to show photos of the East side that he wanted to discuss... are you arthur too?
I already have all the photos of the north side, and as I said I will work my way right around the building with a comparable analysis.
You ARE being DISHONEST.
You are implying that if NIST did not put a photo in that report to support EACH of those window colorings they DIDN'T happen.
Except they had THOUSANDS of photos
And they had HOURS AND HOURS of videos.
And they SEQUENCED ALL OF THE PHOTOS.
So, yes they have the evidence, but they COULDN'T put them ALL in the Report.
However for a measly $13,000 you can have your OWN set.
THEN you can prove them wrong
Arthur
I already have all the photos of the north side, and as I said I will work my way right around the building with a comparable analysis.
You ARE being DISHONEST.
You are implying that if NIST did not put a photo in that report to support EACH of those window colorings they DIDN'T happen.
Except they had THOUSANDS of photos
And they had HOURS AND HOURS of videos.
And they SEQUENCED ALL OF THE PHOTOS.
So, yes they have the evidence, but they COULDN'T put them ALL in the Report.
However for a measly $13,000 you can have your OWN set.
THEN you can prove them wrong
Arthur
you know, just to add some more info to one of my 'papers'(lol, at idiots who think 'paper' matters anymore)....
when the 'cap'(of either tower) began to tilt(one more than the other) and disintegrate, it is obvious that a great deal of angular moment was introduced into connections which 'expect' only horizontal or vertical forces. these connections are definitely the weakest link during the first moments of collapse.
at that instance, the disintegrating pile of rubble that is the cap, should start cascading to the side(s). as the rubble slips off sideways, the available destructive force of the cascading pile of debris(read diffused force) is greatly reduced.
remember that as debris impacts the intact structure, the intact COMPLETELY UNCOMPROMISED portion of the building, ie. the vast majority of it, transfers the full weight of planet earth into the disintegrating cap. kind of an unfair match in favour of planet earth, wouldn't you think?
when the 'cap'(of either tower) began to tilt(one more than the other) and disintegrate, it is obvious that a great deal of angular moment was introduced into connections which 'expect' only horizontal or vertical forces. these connections are definitely the weakest link during the first moments of collapse.
at that instance, the disintegrating pile of rubble that is the cap, should start cascading to the side(s). as the rubble slips off sideways, the available destructive force of the cascading pile of debris(read diffused force) is greatly reduced.
remember that as debris impacts the intact structure, the intact COMPLETELY UNCOMPROMISED portion of the building, ie. the vast majority of it, transfers the full weight of planet earth into the disintegrating cap. kind of an unfair match in favour of planet earth, wouldn't you think?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 5 2006, 01:27 AM)
(lol, at idiots who think 'paper' matters anymore)....
For a minute there I thought you were George Bush.
Also, why are you calling metamars an idiot? He thought a peer reviewed paper was important...
For a minute there I thought you were George Bush.
Also, why are you calling metamars an idiot? He thought a peer reviewed paper was important...
QUOTE (newton+Mar 4 2006, 09:27 PM)
you know, just to add some more info to one of my 'papers'(lol, at idiots who think 'paper' matters anymore)....
when the 'cap'(of either tower) began to tilt(one more than the other) and disintegrate, it is obvious that a great deal of angular moment was introduced into connections which 'expect' only horizontal or vertical forces. these connections are definitely the weakest link during the first moments of collapse.
at that instance, the disintegrating pile of rubble that is the cap, should start cascading to the side(s). as the rubble slips off sideways, the available destructive force of the cascading pile of debris(read diffused force) is greatly reduced.
remember that as debris impacts the intact structure, the intact COMPLETELY UNCOMPROMISED portion of the building, ie. the vast majority of it, transfers the full weight of planet earth into the disintegrating cap. kind of an unfair match in favour of planet earth, wouldn't you think?
As it began to tilt it was ALSO coming DOWN, inside the outer perimeter, which as you pointed out before was cleverly built by staggering the trees so it wouldn't easily fail.
In fact it CONTAINED the tilting top.
Just like the top perimeter columns contained the material within the top.
As far as DISINTEGRATING, no way.
All that STEEL disintegrated?? That Hat Truss?
All that mechanical equipment on the top mechanical floor?
NOPE.
Arthur
when the 'cap'(of either tower) began to tilt(one more than the other) and disintegrate, it is obvious that a great deal of angular moment was introduced into connections which 'expect' only horizontal or vertical forces. these connections are definitely the weakest link during the first moments of collapse.
at that instance, the disintegrating pile of rubble that is the cap, should start cascading to the side(s). as the rubble slips off sideways, the available destructive force of the cascading pile of debris(read diffused force) is greatly reduced.
remember that as debris impacts the intact structure, the intact COMPLETELY UNCOMPROMISED portion of the building, ie. the vast majority of it, transfers the full weight of planet earth into the disintegrating cap. kind of an unfair match in favour of planet earth, wouldn't you think?
As it began to tilt it was ALSO coming DOWN, inside the outer perimeter, which as you pointed out before was cleverly built by staggering the trees so it wouldn't easily fail.
In fact it CONTAINED the tilting top.
Just like the top perimeter columns contained the material within the top.
As far as DISINTEGRATING, no way.
All that STEEL disintegrated?? That Hat Truss?
All that mechanical equipment on the top mechanical floor?
NOPE.
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 11:02 PM)
Now why did faux show such small fires after I showed this...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire2.htm
Because your link also shows small fires, thus making its display redundant.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire2.htm
Because your link also shows small fires, thus making its display redundant.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 11:30 PM)
You call this fire? This is fire:
The intense heat and flames seem to have been totally blown out in this picture:
The picture is at night and is OVEREXPOSED, making the fire flare JUST LIKE THE STREET LIGHTS and you are a HELL of a lot closer to that MUCH SMALLER building.
The fire you can see in the WTC is probably nearly as large as that one, but there is MUCH more fire that YOU CAN'T see going on in the WTC tower and of course the fire has just started in the WTC tower.
MORON.
Arthur
The fire you can see in the WTC is probably nearly as large as that one, but there is MUCH more fire that YOU CAN'T see going on in the WTC tower and of course the fire has just started in the WTC tower.
MORON.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 5 2006, 02:46 AM)
The fire you can see in the WTC is probably nearly as large as that one, but there is MUCH more fire that YOU CAN'T see going on in the WTC tower and of course the fire has just started in the WTC tower.
Arthur the MORON.
So you didn't notice that there was no fire whatsoever in this picture? I'll give you $1 billion if you can spot the fire...
Arthur the MORON.
So you didn't notice that there was no fire whatsoever in this picture? I'll give you $1 billion if you can spot the fire...
QUOTE (trondh+Mar 5 2006, 02:39 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 4 2006, 11:30 PM)
You call this fire? This is fire:
The intense heat and flames seem to have been totally blown out in this picture:
Hi trondh!
Quite apart from the huge plane and explosions damage and fireproofing removal etc, you DO ALSO realise the scale differences and the day/night differences between your compared cases of building fire, don't you?
You could literally put that little-building night-fire INSIDE the WTC tower, and you could still have missed it in all that smoke UNLESS it was right next to the outer walls.
And if you could have taken a NIGHT-time picture of whatever WTC fire WAS visible, you would have gotten as much a 'fiery' red-yellow picture of WTC fires/flames as in that small-building night-time picture.
You DO realise all these AND OTHER OBVIOUS 'unfair comparison' aspects, don't you?
And as for that 'fires' blown out thing. When a whole LOT of ASH and DUST and macerated materials from impact/fire damage gets suddenly and comprehensively dumped on the fire floors when the top of the building falls on those floors, don't you think that most of the air is BEING BLOWN SIDEWAYS/UP/DOWN and so starves the fires of Oxygen temporarily (until they re-flare later in the rubble on the ground)? What's so unusual about what happened? Please explain why even raging fires on those floors should not have been temporarily 'smothered' by all that ASH and dust etc we see being 'blown out' by the compression-expelled hot air/combustion-gases?
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Christophera
I do not know how long you've been researching 9-11 aspects but in 2002, the dimensions and descriptions of the supposed "steel core columns" were no where to be found. It was only after M. Moores F 9-11 that data started showing up that defined these columns.
I do not know how long you've been researching 9-11 aspects but in 2002, the dimensions and descriptions of the supposed "steel core columns" were no where to be found. It was only after M. Moores F 9-11 that data started showing up that defined these columns.
Perhaps you are sincere in your beliefs, but then how do you explain the series of articles from the Engineering News Record put together by 'Guardian'...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Christophera I do not know how long you've been researching 9-11 aspects but in 2002, the dimensions and descriptions of the supposed "steel core columns" were no where to be found. It was only after M. Moores F 9-11 that data started showing up that defined these columns. |
Perhaps you are sincere in your beliefs, but then how do you explain the series of articles from the Engineering News Record put together by 'Guardian'...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
Individual columns in the lower core section, measuring 52 x 22 in. in plan, are formed of 5 and 3-in, plate into almost solid steel shafts that weigh up to 56 tons.
January 1, 1970.
-------------
QUOTE
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS
For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.
The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section.
April 2, 1964
We know that many studies were done during the design stages to address differential shortening between the columns.
And this is where I become a little suspicious of the concrete core theory
You can't build a structure that tall and make it sit there like a rock with no movement at all... (well, you could if you built it comparative to the construction methods used in the Empire State building - but then you would probably be talking 10 times what it cost to build the towers). {IMHO}
How much would it actually cost today to build the Great Pyamid of Giza? We can be Absolutely SURE that should a plane hit such a structure (no matter what the size & weight of the flying object was)... it wouldn't dent it... or make it move at all???
The structure must be able to 'move' within given limits.
Some may say "Yeah, but they sure weren't designed to take the impact of an aircraft".
CORRECTAMUNDO ! Give the man a prize.
Why would I design a structure strong enough to be hit with a baseball bat... when I already know that I have to design for much greater forces than that on that structure on a day-by-day basis.
In order for the building to move, you would need to build with materials that have great tensile and elastic strengths...(neither of which are concrete attributes).
the "Guardian" first published these series of articles from the Engineering News Report in 2002.
Why do you think he chose at that particular time to cache this information on the web?
He was smart enough to see that all the information was 'disappearing' on the web, (unfortunately for those responsible for the disappearing act) "Guardian" saw what was going on... and having his own hardcopies of the Engineering News Report, scanned them and posted them to the web to alert others of the cover-up going on.
But nowhere in these early reports do I see anything relevant to a re-inforced concrete core.
It is TRUE that the new towers are being designed with a concrete core. Research the 'NEW WTC 7 Construction'.
Many construction advances have occured since the 1960s. It's quite interesting how they have developed the pouring system for this new construction revolving around the core.
Some interesting analysis regarding the photos posted by Christophera, Hereward and others. I did find Arthurs pictures and analysis interesting.
--------
trondh & Mel --- nice...
short & sweet
But keeping to the point... like an arrow to the heart.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 04:08 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 04:00 AM)
Here is another shot of the spire and adjacent interior box columns that were under the spire and the concrete core wall behind it.
I posted the original of that picture above. You do know you are COMPLETELY alone in your assumtion don't you.
Are you saying that the material between those 2 interior box columns is drywall?
Perhaps you are sincere in your beliefs, but then how do you explain the series of articles from the Engineering News Record put together by 'Guardian'...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
Perhaps you are sincere in your beliefs, but then how do you explain the series of articles from the Engineering News Record put together by 'Guardian'...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
Individual columns in the lower core section, measuring 52 x 22 in. in plan, are formed of 5 and 3-in, plate into almost solid steel shafts that weigh up to 56 tons.
January 1, 1970.
-------------
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS
For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.
The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section.
April 2, 1964
We know that many studies were done during the design stages to address differential shortening between the columns.
And this is where I become a little suspicious of the concrete core theory
You can't build a structure that tall and make it sit there like a rock with no movement at all... (well, you could if you built it comparative to the construction methods used in the Empire State building - but then you would probably be talking 10 times what it cost to build the towers). {IMHO}
The structure must be able to 'move' within given limits.
Some may say "Yeah, but they sure weren't designed to take the impact of an aircraft".
CORRECTAMUNDO ! Give the man a prize.
Why would I design a structure strong enough to be hit with a baseball bat... when I already know that I have to design for much greater forces than that on that structure on a day-by-day basis.
In order for the building to move, you would need to build with materials that have great tensile and elastic strengths...(neither of which are concrete attributes).
the "Guardian" first published these series of articles from the Engineering News Report in 2002.
Why do you think he chose at that particular time to cache this information on the web?
He was smart enough to see that all the information was 'disappearing' on the web, (unfortunately for those responsible for the disappearing act) "Guardian" saw what was going on... and having his own hardcopies of the Engineering News Report, scanned them and posted them to the web to alert others of the cover-up going on.
But nowhere in these early reports do I see anything relevant to a re-inforced concrete core.
It is TRUE that the new towers are being designed with a concrete core. Research the 'NEW WTC 7 Construction'.
Many construction advances have occured since the 1960s. It's quite interesting how they have developed the pouring system for this new construction revolving around the core.
Some interesting analysis regarding the photos posted by Christophera, Hereward and others. I did find Arthurs pictures and analysis interesting.
--------
trondh --- nice...
short & sweet
welcome.
Hi Foxx! About this little passage....
I posted the original of that picture above. You do know you are COMPLETELY alone in your assumtion don't you.
Are you saying that the material between those 2 interior box columns is drywall?
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 5 2006, 03:02 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Christophera
I do not know how long you've been researching 9-11 aspects but in 2002, the dimensions and descriptions of the supposed "steel core columns" were no where to be found. It was only after M. Moores F 9-11 that data started showing up that defined these columns.
I do not know how long you've been researching 9-11 aspects but in 2002, the dimensions and descriptions of the supposed "steel core columns" were no where to be found. It was only after M. Moores F 9-11 that data started showing up that defined these columns.
Perhaps you are sincere in your beliefs, but then how do you explain the series of articles from the Engineering News Record put together by 'Guardian'...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Christophera I do not know how long you've been researching 9-11 aspects but in 2002, the dimensions and descriptions of the supposed "steel core columns" were no where to be found. It was only after M. Moores F 9-11 that data started showing up that defined these columns. |
Perhaps you are sincere in your beliefs, but then how do you explain the series of articles from the Engineering News Record put together by 'Guardian'...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...news-record.htm
Individual columns in the lower core section, measuring 52 x 22 in. in plan, are formed of 5 and 3-in, plate into almost solid steel shafts that weigh up to 56 tons.
January 1, 1970.
-------------
QUOTE
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS
For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.
The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section.
April 2, 1964
We know that many studies were done during the design stages to address differential shortening between the columns.
And this is where I become a little suspicious of the concrete core theory
You can't build a structure that tall and make it sit there like a rock with no movement at all... (well, you could if you built it comparative to the construction methods used in the Empire State building - but then you would probably be talking 10 times what it cost to build the towers). {IMHO}
The structure must be able to 'move' within given limits.
Some may say "Yeah, but they sure weren't designed to take the impact of an aircraft".
CORRECTAMUNDO ! Give the man a prize.
Why would I design a structure strong enough to be hit with a baseball bat... when I already know that I have to design for much greater forces than that on that structure on a day-by-day basis.
In order for the building to move, you would need to build with materials that have great tensile and elastic strengths...(neither of which are concrete attributes).
the "Guardian" first published these series of articles from the Engineering News Report in 2002.
Why do you think he chose at that particular time to cache this information on the web?
He was smart enough to see that all the information was 'disappearing' on the web, (unfortunately for those responsible for the disappearing act) "Guardian" saw what was going on... and having his own hardcopies of the Engineering News Report, scanned them and posted them to the web to alert others of the cover-up going on.
But nowhere in these early reports do I see anything relevant to a re-inforced concrete core.
It is TRUE that the new towers are being designed with a concrete core. Research the 'NEW WTC 7 Construction'.
Many construction advances have occured since the 1960s. It's quite interesting how they have developed the pouring system for this new construction revolving around the core.
Some interesting analysis regarding the photos posted by Christophera, Hereward and others. I did find Arthurs pictures and analysis interesting.
--------
trondh --- nice...
short & sweet
welcome.
Hi Foxx! About this little passage....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |