QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 5 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by RC
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
I suggest that your point is not quite what it seems, in view of that. What do you say, is this fair comment/observation?
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
I suggest that your point is not quite what it seems, in view of that. What do you say, is this fair comment/observation?
I have received similar threats before.
Recently. I was going to be 'axed'.
Your sublime suggestions do not make me tremble.
It's all written down in the book of life... a record of each persons words, actions, and deeds.
ALL will be revealed.
Patience, brother.
Hi Foxx!
Methinks you protest too much. Unless it is a humorous post you made and I just missed it, hehehe.
Haven't you heard of "Dramatic Licence" and "bringing the point home" with the "personal angle" when making a point?
I note that you chose to take the "paranoid" evasion route, rather than addressing the substantive observation/comment I made on your 'weak' comparison between plane and wind loads/effects. So....any comment there?
Cheers! (no sublime messages in that either, mate, hehehe).
PS: You DID get the 'analogy' though? The plane ('baseball bat') knocked out the columns ('teeth') and landed inside ('head') and exploded. OK? Just made it more 'realisable' for those who need everything explained to them using 'imagery' rather than common knowledge/sense. ("Patience, brother"...is that a new 'call sign'?).
RC.
.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 11:19 PM)
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?
Well, sorta, but when you say DRYWALL, most people think about the lightduty sheetrock that you find in residential houses.
I assure you there are MUCH TOUGHER varieties of GYPSUM PANELS.
As I recall, these panels were prefabbed, double thickness using steel studs.
They had to handle the pressure loads from the high speed elevators, so, no they weren't wimpy drywall like your abode.
Arthur
Interesting plume of smoke develops after the 'thermobaric' explosion. Very little flame... but huge quantities of this particular color of smoke.
Looks very similar to the flame-less smoke pictures of WTC 7 ?
Oh darrn... I don't have those handy.
Would someone like to juxtapose the smoke picture above with that one of WTC 7 ---where it was belching huge quantities of smoke on the south face (with NO evidence of fire)?
Cheers
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?
Well, sorta, but when you say DRYWALL, most people think about the lightduty sheetrock that you find in residential houses.
I assure you there are MUCH TOUGHER varieties of GYPSUM PANELS.
As I recall, these panels were prefabbed, double thickness using steel studs.
They had to handle the pressure loads from the high speed elevators, so, no they weren't wimpy drywall like your abode.
Arthur
QUOTE
Interesting plume of smoke develops after the 'thermobaric' explosion. Very little flame... but huge quantities of this particular color of smoke.
Looks very similar to the flame-less smoke pictures of WTC 7 ?
Oh darrn... I don't have those handy.
Would someone like to juxtapose the smoke picture above with that one of WTC 7 ---where it was belching huge quantities of smoke on the south face (with NO evidence of fire)?
Cheers
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 5 2006, 04:17 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 11:19 PM)
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?
Well, sorta, but when you say DRYWALL, most people think about the lightduty sheetrock that you find in residential houses.
I assure you there are MUCH TOUGHER varieties of GYPSUM PANELS.
As I recall, these panels were prefabbed, double thickness using steel studs.
They had to handle the pressure loads from the high speed elevators, so, no they weren't wimpy drywall like your abode.
Arthur
Good point Aduo. (Actually, ANOTHER good point Heh!) I remember reading where people cut through the drywall after being stuck in an elevator. They said they had to cut through three layers if I recall correctly. They then pushed some tile out and came out in a bathroom. They used a window squeegee to break through.
It;s also possible the wall they just happen to go through was not the concrete one.
I have received similar threats before.
Recently. I was going to be 'axed'.
Your sublime suggestions do not make me tremble.
It's all written down in the book of life... a record of each persons words, actions, and deeds.
ALL will be revealed.
Patience, brother.
That didn't sound like a threat to me, just science..
Foxx would have trouble recognizing science if Bill Nye himself were demonstrating 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?
Well, sorta, but when you say DRYWALL, most people think about the lightduty sheetrock that you find in residential houses.
I assure you there are MUCH TOUGHER varieties of GYPSUM PANELS.
As I recall, these panels were prefabbed, double thickness using steel studs.
They had to handle the pressure loads from the high speed elevators, so, no they weren't wimpy drywall like your abode.
Arthur
Good point Aduo. (Actually, ANOTHER good point Heh!) I remember reading where people cut through the drywall after being stuck in an elevator. They said they had to cut through three layers if I recall correctly. They then pushed some tile out and came out in a bathroom. They used a window squeegee to break through.
It;s also possible the wall they just happen to go through was not the concrete one.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:47 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 5 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by RC
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
I suggest that your point is not quite what it seems, in view of that. What do you say, is this fair comment/observation?
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
I suggest that your point is not quite what it seems, in view of that. What do you say, is this fair comment/observation?
I have received similar threats before.
Recently. I was going to be 'axed'.
Your sublime suggestions do not make me tremble.
It's all written down in the book of life... a record of each persons words, actions, and deeds.
ALL will be revealed.
Patience, brother.
That didn't sound like a threat to me, just science..
Foxx would have trouble recognizing science if Bill Nye himself were demonstrating it.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:30 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can be sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
No wonder, ..... you assume the core is still standing. The spire is just outside the core near a corner of it, hundreds of feet off the ground. Certainly no debris of that apparent uniformity could credibly gather there. It looks like a concrete wall.
And below is another image showing the spire from the left side of the image we are discussing. Obviously too thick for drywall.
and here is a zoom of its elements.
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can be sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
No wonder, ..... you assume the core is still standing. The spire is just outside the core near a corner of it, hundreds of feet off the ground. Certainly no debris of that apparent uniformity could credibly gather there. It looks like a concrete wall.
And below is another image showing the spire from the left side of the image we are discussing. Obviously too thick for drywall.
and here is a zoom of its elements.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:57 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:39 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
I think we need a controlled experiment to test your hypothesis on Faux because I don't believe you. I think the bat would meet the concentrated mass of reinforced concrete withint his skull and shatter into pieces.
Again, I'm not a scientist/physics professor but he does seem to be dense.
Hi CS!
You're from the "show me!" state! hehehe. (Is Missouri the 'show me' state?...I can't recall). Could metamars run a simulation of it and tell us the results, do you think? He TOO seems to want 'scholarly' proof for the oft-proven bleedin' obvious. Cheers!
RC.
.
I grew up in the shadows of the twin towers in the lower east side of Manhattan. When they fell it was like losing a part of my history.
That makes me from the "Show me or else" state.
I think we need a controlled experiment to test your hypothesis on Faux because I don't believe you. I think the bat would meet the concentrated mass of reinforced concrete withint his skull and shatter into pieces.
Again, I'm not a scientist/physics professor but he does seem to be dense.
Hi CS!
You're from the "show me!" state! hehehe. (Is Missouri the 'show me' state?...I can't recall). Could metamars run a simulation of it and tell us the results, do you think? He TOO seems to want 'scholarly' proof for the oft-proven bleedin' obvious. Cheers!
RC.
.
I grew up in the shadows of the twin towers in the lower east side of Manhattan. When they fell it was like losing a part of my history.
That makes me from the "Show me or else" state.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 04:51 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:57 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:39 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
I think we need a controlled experiment to test your hypothesis on Faux because I don't believe you. I think the bat would meet the concentrated mass of reinforced concrete withint his skull and shatter into pieces.
Again, I'm not a scientist/physics professor but he does seem to be dense.
Hi CS!
You're from the "show me!" state! hehehe. (Is Missouri the 'show me' state?...I can't recall). Could metamars run a simulation of it and tell us the results, do you think? He TOO seems to want 'scholarly' proof for the oft-proven bleedin' obvious. Cheers!
RC.
.
I grew up in the shadows of the twin towers in the lower east side of Manhattan. When they fell it was like losing a part of my history.
That makes me from the "Show me or else" state.
Check the post above the one I quote. It SHOWS that Arthers suggestion that special drywall is the material between the core columns is just not right. The material is just too thick!
I think we need a controlled experiment to test your hypothesis on Faux because I don't believe you. I think the bat would meet the concentrated mass of reinforced concrete withint his skull and shatter into pieces.
Again, I'm not a scientist/physics professor but he does seem to be dense.
Hi CS!
You're from the "show me!" state! hehehe. (Is Missouri the 'show me' state?...I can't recall). Could metamars run a simulation of it and tell us the results, do you think? He TOO seems to want 'scholarly' proof for the oft-proven bleedin' obvious. Cheers!
RC.
.
I grew up in the shadows of the twin towers in the lower east side of Manhattan. When they fell it was like losing a part of my history.
That makes me from the "Show me or else" state.
Check the post above the one I quote. It SHOWS that Arthers suggestion that special drywall is the material between the core columns is just not right. The material is just too thick!
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 04:46 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:30 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can be sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
No wonder, ..... you assume the core is still standing. The spire is just outside the core near a corner of it, hundreds of feet off the ground. Certainly no debris of that apparent uniformity could credibly gather there. It looks like a concrete wall.
And below is another image showing the spire from the left side of the image we are discussing. Obviously too thick for drywall.
and here is a zoom of its elements.
Not obvious at all. It's obvious to me there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion. But the evidence that is there leans toward no concrete IMHO.
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can be sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
No wonder, ..... you assume the core is still standing. The spire is just outside the core near a corner of it, hundreds of feet off the ground. Certainly no debris of that apparent uniformity could credibly gather there. It looks like a concrete wall.
And below is another image showing the spire from the left side of the image we are discussing. Obviously too thick for drywall.
and here is a zoom of its elements.
Not obvious at all. It's obvious to me there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion. But the evidence that is there leans toward no concrete IMHO.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 04:54 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 04:46 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:30 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can be sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
No wonder, ..... you assume the core is still standing. The spire is just outside the core near a corner of it, hundreds of feet off the ground. Certainly no debris of that apparent uniformity could credibly gather there. It looks like a concrete wall.
And below is another image showing the spire from the left side of the image we are discussing. Obviously too thick for drywall.
and here is a zoom of its elements.
Not obvious at all. It's obvious to me there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion. But the evidence that is there leans toward no concrete IMHO.
What about the thickness of the wall shown? It is way too thick for drywall as Arther suggested. And what evidence is that. Raw evidence, that and real common sense are what I'm using, no post government handled evidence allowed!!
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can be sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
No wonder, ..... you assume the core is still standing. The spire is just outside the core near a corner of it, hundreds of feet off the ground. Certainly no debris of that apparent uniformity could credibly gather there. It looks like a concrete wall.
And below is another image showing the spire from the left side of the image we are discussing. Obviously too thick for drywall.
and here is a zoom of its elements.
Not obvious at all. It's obvious to me there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion. But the evidence that is there leans toward no concrete IMHO.
What about the thickness of the wall shown? It is way too thick for drywall as Arther suggested. And what evidence is that. Raw evidence, that and real common sense are what I'm using, no post government handled evidence allowed!!
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 5 2006, 01:21 AM)
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
Oh.
Why weren't we informed?
So you are saying that. "although NIST has THOUSANDS of photos (and videos) to choose from"...
they picked the ones that DON'T show what they are trying to 'get-across'... ???
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
QUOTE
by arthur
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
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
Oh.
Why weren't we informed?
So you are saying that. "although NIST has THOUSANDS of photos (and videos) to choose from"...
they picked the ones that DON'T show what they are trying to 'get-across'... ???
Foxx,
Its a FRIGGIN 500 page report on the Fires in WTC 2.
Its not a WINDOW BY WINDOW walk through of what happened.
The Report discusses things they think are particularly relevant.
Insuring a picture is presented that backs up the coloration of EACH window on Both Towers is patently ridiculous.
But, I ask you, since you are so ANAL as to have done so.
Of the windows they have colored on that East face, the one you say is a MYTH, how many do they NOT provide evidence for?
Arthur
Its a FRIGGIN 500 page report on the Fires in WTC 2.
Its not a WINDOW BY WINDOW walk through of what happened.
The Report discusses things they think are particularly relevant.
Insuring a picture is presented that backs up the coloration of EACH window on Both Towers is patently ridiculous.
But, I ask you, since you are so ANAL as to have done so.
Of the windows they have colored on that East face, the one you say is a MYTH, how many do they NOT provide evidence for?
Arthur
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 04:53 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 04:51 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:57 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:39 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
I think we need a controlled experiment to test your hypothesis on Faux because I don't believe you. I think the bat would meet the concentrated mass of reinforced concrete withint his skull and shatter into pieces.
Again, I'm not a scientist/physics professor but he does seem to be dense.
Hi CS!
You're from the "show me!" state! hehehe. (Is Missouri the 'show me' state?...I can't recall). Could metamars run a simulation of it and tell us the results, do you think? He TOO seems to want 'scholarly' proof for the oft-proven bleedin' obvious. Cheers!
RC.
.
I grew up in the shadows of the twin towers in the lower east side of Manhattan. When they fell it was like losing a part of my history.
That makes me from the "Show me or else" state.
Check the post above the one I quote. It SHOWS that Arthers suggestion that special drywall is the material between the core columns is just not right. The material is just too thick!
That's not what I read. He says it's not your average drywall. Not that it's "special" other than construction grade 2 hour fire rated gypsum. Your average drywall isn't 2 hour fire rated drywall. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
Its strong but not hard to cut through if you work at it. It's not like they punched a hole in it with their bear fists. They had a tool. As with anything, put three together and it becomes harder to break through. Like three arrows are hard to break when they are together but easy to break one at a time.
Again, both of us are giving POSSIBILITIES and not making statements of fact concerning the photo. I maintain as I have from the start there is nothing conclusive to be drawn from the photo. The only thing that can change my mind is seeing the concrete being poured at the time of construction. And I'n not talking about from the basement levels. I would have to see it being poured on the upper levels.
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
(Taken from www.skyscraper.org)
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
NARRATOR: The floor trusses had a vital structural role. They held the towers firm bracing the outer skeleton against the inner core. Without the trusses the towers could not stand. Their performance is now at the heart of the investigation into what happened. Another area of innovation was in fire protection. To save weight the trusses were coated not in concrete but in the latest, lightweight, heat-resistant foam and instead of protecting the inner core with concrete the architects used both the spray and a lightweight fire resistant plasterboard called drywall. Drywall is very effective at keeping out fire, but it has one problem: it's not very strong.
NARRATOR: What seems to have happened is that the fire had flooded into the core and cut off all the stairways, something that should not have been possible, as they should have been protected by the fire-resistant drywall, but the problem seems to have been that the drywall was just not strong enough. One remarkable story illustrates just how weak the drywall was. 40 storeys below the crash site a lift jammed between floors trapping six people.
AL SMITH: If we don't get out of here will, are we going to suffocate in here, will the elevator move again? I think a lot of thoughts just raced to our mind at that particular moment.
NARRATOR: They forced the lift doors open and found themselves facing drywall. Jan Demczur attacked it with nothing more than his window cleaning squeegee.
JAN DEMCZUR: Whatever you have you have to try. Now in this particular time there was not brick or concrete or something, there was drywall.
AL SMITH: You take the handle of the squeegee, takes the rubber out to make a device to work with. I focus on this guy digging into the wall like there was no tomorrow.
JAN DEMCZUR: I was chopping I don't know my hand like was tight or something and I was putting and squeegee went straight through the hole and I lost my squeegee.
NARRATOR: Others in the lift took over and by kicking the drywall enlarged the hole. Al Smith, the thinnest, went through first.
AL SMITH: I was head first, then my shoulders, which was a tight squeeze, then I hollered back into the elevator for them to push my feet.
NARRATOR: It is a sad irony that it was the weakness of the drywall which gave the six in the lift their chance to escape because for those higher up that weakness may have proved fatal. It seems the drywall around the emergency staircases where the plane had hit were simply blown away, allowing the fire and smoke to flood in. That was almost certainly why nearly 1,000 people were trapped above the area of impact. Some building safety experts think that drywall, which is used in many modern buildings, is just too lightweight. A stronger fireproofing might have allowed many more to escape.
JAKE PAULS (Building Safety Consultant): If the stairs had been more hardened - let's put it that way - the walls would have been less able to be breached by the, by the collision of the aircraft. Perhaps one or two of the stairs would have survived the impact and that would have meant people from above maybe could have passed through the impact area.
NARRATOR: In the very early stages, just after the impact, all eyes were on the victims stuck high in the tower. No one was thinking that there might be even worse to come. But the seeds of destruction that would eventually bring down the North Tower had already been sown. First, the plane had dislodged, or destroyed, many of the floor trusses and those still in place had most of their fireproofing blown off. Most of the inner core columns seemed to have survived and could continue to carry the weight of the building, but their fireproofing, including the drywall, was pulverised. Without that protection the bare steel of the core was now exposed to intense heat.
MATTHYS LEVY (Structural Engineer): Steel will lose half its strength by the time it rea, reaches about 500 degrees Centigrade, so that fire caused the steel to soften up. The columns began to soften, buckle, fail.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...ntertrans.shtml
Problems with drywall
The World Trade Center had ultra-lightweight floors, and used the latest fireproof 'drywall' to protect the stairwells and lift shafts. Much of this internal structure seems to have been vaporized when the planes crashed, exposing the underlying steel to the intense heat of multiple fires.
Brian Clark was one of the only four survivors from both towers to escape from above where the planes hit. He describess clambering over the shattered walls to break through a smoke-filled stairwell to get out. "Drywall had been blown off and was lying up against the stair railing." he says, "We had to shovel it aside." Another survivor, window cleaner Jan Demczur, found the drywall so soft that he was able to dig through it with a squeegee to break out of a lift he was trapped in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...adecenter.shtml
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/...ecord.asp?ID=35
I think we need a controlled experiment to test your hypothesis on Faux because I don't believe you. I think the bat would meet the concentrated mass of reinforced concrete withint his skull and shatter into pieces.
Again, I'm not a scientist/physics professor but he does seem to be dense.
Hi CS!
You're from the "show me!" state! hehehe. (Is Missouri the 'show me' state?...I can't recall). Could metamars run a simulation of it and tell us the results, do you think? He TOO seems to want 'scholarly' proof for the oft-proven bleedin' obvious. Cheers!
RC.
.
I grew up in the shadows of the twin towers in the lower east side of Manhattan. When they fell it was like losing a part of my history.
That makes me from the "Show me or else" state.
Check the post above the one I quote. It SHOWS that Arthers suggestion that special drywall is the material between the core columns is just not right. The material is just too thick!
That's not what I read. He says it's not your average drywall. Not that it's "special" other than construction grade 2 hour fire rated gypsum. Your average drywall isn't 2 hour fire rated drywall. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
Its strong but not hard to cut through if you work at it. It's not like they punched a hole in it with their bear fists. They had a tool. As with anything, put three together and it becomes harder to break through. Like three arrows are hard to break when they are together but easy to break one at a time.
Again, both of us are giving POSSIBILITIES and not making statements of fact concerning the photo. I maintain as I have from the start there is nothing conclusive to be drawn from the photo. The only thing that can change my mind is seeing the concrete being poured at the time of construction. And I'n not talking about from the basement levels. I would have to see it being poured on the upper levels.
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
(Taken from www.skyscraper.org)
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
NARRATOR: The floor trusses had a vital structural role. They held the towers firm bracing the outer skeleton against the inner core. Without the trusses the towers could not stand. Their performance is now at the heart of the investigation into what happened. Another area of innovation was in fire protection. To save weight the trusses were coated not in concrete but in the latest, lightweight, heat-resistant foam and instead of protecting the inner core with concrete the architects used both the spray and a lightweight fire resistant plasterboard called drywall. Drywall is very effective at keeping out fire, but it has one problem: it's not very strong.
NARRATOR: What seems to have happened is that the fire had flooded into the core and cut off all the stairways, something that should not have been possible, as they should have been protected by the fire-resistant drywall, but the problem seems to have been that the drywall was just not strong enough. One remarkable story illustrates just how weak the drywall was. 40 storeys below the crash site a lift jammed between floors trapping six people.
AL SMITH: If we don't get out of here will, are we going to suffocate in here, will the elevator move again? I think a lot of thoughts just raced to our mind at that particular moment.
NARRATOR: They forced the lift doors open and found themselves facing drywall. Jan Demczur attacked it with nothing more than his window cleaning squeegee.
JAN DEMCZUR: Whatever you have you have to try. Now in this particular time there was not brick or concrete or something, there was drywall.
AL SMITH: You take the handle of the squeegee, takes the rubber out to make a device to work with. I focus on this guy digging into the wall like there was no tomorrow.
JAN DEMCZUR: I was chopping I don't know my hand like was tight or something and I was putting and squeegee went straight through the hole and I lost my squeegee.
NARRATOR: Others in the lift took over and by kicking the drywall enlarged the hole. Al Smith, the thinnest, went through first.
AL SMITH: I was head first, then my shoulders, which was a tight squeeze, then I hollered back into the elevator for them to push my feet.
NARRATOR: It is a sad irony that it was the weakness of the drywall which gave the six in the lift their chance to escape because for those higher up that weakness may have proved fatal. It seems the drywall around the emergency staircases where the plane had hit were simply blown away, allowing the fire and smoke to flood in. That was almost certainly why nearly 1,000 people were trapped above the area of impact. Some building safety experts think that drywall, which is used in many modern buildings, is just too lightweight. A stronger fireproofing might have allowed many more to escape.
JAKE PAULS (Building Safety Consultant): If the stairs had been more hardened - let's put it that way - the walls would have been less able to be breached by the, by the collision of the aircraft. Perhaps one or two of the stairs would have survived the impact and that would have meant people from above maybe could have passed through the impact area.
NARRATOR: In the very early stages, just after the impact, all eyes were on the victims stuck high in the tower. No one was thinking that there might be even worse to come. But the seeds of destruction that would eventually bring down the North Tower had already been sown. First, the plane had dislodged, or destroyed, many of the floor trusses and those still in place had most of their fireproofing blown off. Most of the inner core columns seemed to have survived and could continue to carry the weight of the building, but their fireproofing, including the drywall, was pulverised. Without that protection the bare steel of the core was now exposed to intense heat.
MATTHYS LEVY (Structural Engineer): Steel will lose half its strength by the time it rea, reaches about 500 degrees Centigrade, so that fire caused the steel to soften up. The columns began to soften, buckle, fail.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...ntertrans.shtml
Problems with drywall
The World Trade Center had ultra-lightweight floors, and used the latest fireproof 'drywall' to protect the stairwells and lift shafts. Much of this internal structure seems to have been vaporized when the planes crashed, exposing the underlying steel to the intense heat of multiple fires.
Brian Clark was one of the only four survivors from both towers to escape from above where the planes hit. He describess clambering over the shattered walls to break through a smoke-filled stairwell to get out. "Drywall had been blown off and was lying up against the stair railing." he says, "We had to shovel it aside." Another survivor, window cleaner Jan Demczur, found the drywall so soft that he was able to dig through it with a squeegee to break out of a lift he was trapped in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...adecenter.shtml
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/...ecord.asp?ID=35
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 5 2006, 04:56 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 5 2006, 01:21 AM)
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
Oh.
Why weren't we informed?
So you are saying that. "although NIST has THOUSANDS of photos (and videos) to choose from"...
they picked the ones that DON'T show what they are trying to 'get-across'... ???
Continuing to lie are you Faux...
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.
The firemans quote comes from 9:43 a.m.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east10.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east11.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east12.jpg
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
QUOTE
by arthur
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
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
Oh.
Why weren't we informed?
So you are saying that. "although NIST has THOUSANDS of photos (and videos) to choose from"...
they picked the ones that DON'T show what they are trying to 'get-across'... ???
Continuing to lie are you Faux...
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.
The firemans quote comes from 9:43 a.m.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east10.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east11.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east12.jpg
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 5 2006, 05:13 AM)
Foxx,
Its a FRIGGIN 500 page report on the Fires in WTC 2.
Its not a WINDOW BY WINDOW walk through of what happened.
The Report discusses things they think are particularly relevant.
Insuring a picture is presented that backs up the coloration of EACH window on Both Towers is patently rediculous.
But, I ask you, since you are so ANAL as to have done so.
Of the windows they have colored on that East face, the one you say is a MYTH, how many do they NOT provide evidence for?
Arthur
Hi arthur. thanks for your input and question.
My words were spoken based upon the research I have done, and my current understanding of issues.
I have already shown that NIST photos (related to the North Fire) are really a 'myth' ...{imho}.
I will look forward to criticisms of that.
At this time, I don't have all my files in order related to the East Face fires.
However, based upon my cursory analysis of the East and South face fires (which were much less intensive than the North face fires)... I find the same pattern (with regard to the NIST reports).
I can fully support my earlier comments in the context which they were made...
(but not in 30 words or less).
You obviously have access to the same report as I do.
I understand that you do not have the capability of 'copying' those photos you wish to refer to and/or discuss.
Its really not that hard to capture the photos or text you wish to use (from an adobe document which blocks saving of the required pieces).
When looking at the picture / page / text you wish to capture... simply press the "print-screen" button on your computer.
open your photo editing program and choose 'import'
From there you can crop / resize / or whatever.
Once you have done that... save to your files.
seems simple to me... even though I am not a 'computer programer' (like some on this board).
Personally, I don't like Adobe pdf documents, because they take so long to download... Nevertheless... they DO have advantages such as being able to enlarge images... etc.
I hope this helps ?
Cheers
Foxx
Its a FRIGGIN 500 page report on the Fires in WTC 2.
Its not a WINDOW BY WINDOW walk through of what happened.
The Report discusses things they think are particularly relevant.
Insuring a picture is presented that backs up the coloration of EACH window on Both Towers is patently rediculous.
But, I ask you, since you are so ANAL as to have done so.
Of the windows they have colored on that East face, the one you say is a MYTH, how many do they NOT provide evidence for?
Arthur
QUOTE
by arthur
Of the windows they have colored on that East face, the one you say is a MYTH, how many do they NOT provide evidence for?
Of the windows they have colored on that East face, the one you say is a MYTH, how many do they NOT provide evidence for?
Hi arthur. thanks for your input and question.
My words were spoken based upon the research I have done, and my current understanding of issues.
I have already shown that NIST photos (related to the North Fire) are really a 'myth' ...{imho}.
I will look forward to criticisms of that.
At this time, I don't have all my files in order related to the East Face fires.
However, based upon my cursory analysis of the East and South face fires (which were much less intensive than the North face fires)... I find the same pattern (with regard to the NIST reports).
I can fully support my earlier comments in the context which they were made...
(but not in 30 words or less).
You obviously have access to the same report as I do.
I understand that you do not have the capability of 'copying' those photos you wish to refer to and/or discuss.
Its really not that hard to capture the photos or text you wish to use (from an adobe document which blocks saving of the required pieces).
When looking at the picture / page / text you wish to capture... simply press the "print-screen" button on your computer.
open your photo editing program and choose 'import'
From there you can crop / resize / or whatever.
Once you have done that... save to your files.
seems simple to me... even though I am not a 'computer programer' (like some on this board).
Personally, I don't like Adobe pdf documents, because they take so long to download... Nevertheless... they DO have advantages such as being able to enlarge images... etc.
I hope this helps ?
Cheers
Foxx
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 5 2006, 02:25 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 5 2006, 05:13 AM)
Foxx,
Of the windows they have colored on that East face, the one you say is a MYTH, how many do they NOT provide evidence for?
Arthur
My words were spoken based upon the research I have done, and my current understanding of issues. ...
At this time, I don't have all my files in order related to the East Face fires.
However, based upon my cursory analysis of the East ... face fires ... I find the same pattern ...
I can fully support my earlier comments in the context which they were made...
(but not in 30 words or less).
I think that was Foxx's way of saying "I made it up"
Arthur
Of the windows they have colored on that East face, the one you say is a MYTH, how many do they NOT provide evidence for?
Arthur
My words were spoken based upon the research I have done, and my current understanding of issues. ...
At this time, I don't have all my files in order related to the East Face fires.
However, based upon my cursory analysis of the East ... face fires ... I find the same pattern ...
I can fully support my earlier comments in the context which they were made...
(but not in 30 words or less).
I think that was Foxx's way of saying "I made it up"
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:30 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
Hey, ................ you removed the images from the quote of my post that has the proof that the material between the interior box columns is not drywall, it is way too thick! Then you didn't answer my question, all but changing the subject with a HUGE post that has maybe 3 relevant sentences. Somebody killed our 3,000 brothers and sisters and we need the truth here. Somebody is trying to get away with something.
Again I ask.
How can that be drywall?
Here's the interior box columns with the concrete shear wall between them that has been called drywall.
Here is the shot from the left side of the above.
Here is a zoom of that shot and it shows a THICK wall, the steel reinforced concrete shear wall. No way is it drywall and the picture makes it obvious.
Since there are no photos available that show concrete being poured, reasonably available information must be used INSTEAD of assumptions that the government story is correct just because you do not get the evidence you want. It will require some thinking, reasoning and logic. This is NOT TV where the thinking is done for you.
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
Hey, ................ you removed the images from the quote of my post that has the proof that the material between the interior box columns is not drywall, it is way too thick! Then you didn't answer my question, all but changing the subject with a HUGE post that has maybe 3 relevant sentences. Somebody killed our 3,000 brothers and sisters and we need the truth here. Somebody is trying to get away with something.
Again I ask.
How can that be drywall?
Here's the interior box columns with the concrete shear wall between them that has been called drywall.
Here is the shot from the left side of the above.
Here is a zoom of that shot and it shows a THICK wall, the steel reinforced concrete shear wall. No way is it drywall and the picture makes it obvious.
Since there are no photos available that show concrete being poured, reasonably available information must be used INSTEAD of assumptions that the government story is correct just because you do not get the evidence you want. It will require some thinking, reasoning and logic. This is NOT TV where the thinking is done for you.
Look & see...The emperor has no clothes...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east2.jpg
Where's the FIRE ???
Can we see close-ups of each of those areas?...
... a magnifying glass perhaps to see these alleged infernos
Welcome, folks... to the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory.
In the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory... fires do not produce flames... only smoke.
Flames do not seek sources of oxygen, but rather tend to escape sources of oxygen by hiding unseen where they will be least noticed. Very sneaky of those flames.
BTW... I also have a bridge for sale if you're interested?
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east2.jpg
Where's the FIRE ???
Can we see close-ups of each of those areas?...
... a magnifying glass perhaps to see these alleged infernos
Welcome, folks... to the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory.
In the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory... fires do not produce flames... only smoke.
Flames do not seek sources of oxygen, but rather tend to escape sources of oxygen by hiding unseen where they will be least noticed. Very sneaky of those flames.
BTW... I also have a bridge for sale if you're interested?
You have all lost the plot. Rather take time and refind yourself on http://www.shalom.co.za
or http://shalom.co.za/findme
or http://shalom.co.za/findme
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 5 2006, 04:43 AM)
Look & see...The emperor has no clothes...
Where's the FIRE ???
Can we see close-ups of each of those areas?...
... a magnifying glass perhaps to see these alleged infernos
Welcome, folks... to the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory.
In the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory... fires do not produce flames... only smoke.
Flames do not seek sources of oxygen, but rather tend to escape sources of oxygen by hiding unseen where they will be least noticed.
More LIES????
Of course,
Foxx shows NIST picture 9-6 and then asks rhetorically:
"Can we see close-ups of each of those areas?..."
Which ignores the fact that NIST picture 9-7 is IN FACT two close-ups of that picture.
This is what NIST said about the 9-6 picture (taken just 4 minutes after the crash) Figure 9-6 offers a great deal more resolution than is evident from the way it has been sized. Figure 9-7 shows blowups taken from the photograph.....
But why should I be surprised, in Foxx's world Flames are INTELLIGENT.
In Foxx's world, flames SEEK sources of Oxygen?????
Foxx, How do they do KNOW??? Do they use a fire's version of "spideysense"????
Curious people want to know.
Do, as Foxx suggests, flames actually HIDE or is it that the VAST majority of pictures are at an acute angle and so you can only see a few feet into the towers, or from such a distance that resolution is too low to be definitive?
Could it be that if a flame isn't within a few feet of the windows it generally WON'T be seen?
Could it be that MOST OF THE BUILDING is NOT within a few feet of the Windows??(NIST provides similar maps that have windows where no data AT ALL is available, these are colored in BLUE. There are a LOT of Blue windows considering this was one of the most photographed disasters ever.)
Could this be why NIST spent so much time analysing the picture and video evidence so that when they developed the STATE OF THE ART FIRE MODEL to map the INTERNAL fire movement they could used THESE PICTURES to validate the model?
Nah, that couldn't be it.
According to this collection of CT idiots, WE KNOW that they are all part of a Govt Coverup to support Silverstein, Gulliani, Bush, PNAC and the NWO. (the list of people IN on the cover-up grows dail
Arthur
Where's the FIRE ???
Can we see close-ups of each of those areas?...
... a magnifying glass perhaps to see these alleged infernos
Welcome, folks... to the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory.
In the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory... fires do not produce flames... only smoke.
Flames do not seek sources of oxygen, but rather tend to escape sources of oxygen by hiding unseen where they will be least noticed.
More LIES????
Of course,
Foxx shows NIST picture 9-6 and then asks rhetorically:
"Can we see close-ups of each of those areas?..."
Which ignores the fact that NIST picture 9-7 is IN FACT two close-ups of that picture.
This is what NIST said about the 9-6 picture (taken just 4 minutes after the crash) Figure 9-6 offers a great deal more resolution than is evident from the way it has been sized. Figure 9-7 shows blowups taken from the photograph.....
But why should I be surprised, in Foxx's world Flames are INTELLIGENT.
In Foxx's world, flames SEEK sources of Oxygen?????
Foxx, How do they do KNOW??? Do they use a fire's version of "spideysense"????
Curious people want to know.
Do, as Foxx suggests, flames actually HIDE or is it that the VAST majority of pictures are at an acute angle and so you can only see a few feet into the towers, or from such a distance that resolution is too low to be definitive?
Could it be that if a flame isn't within a few feet of the windows it generally WON'T be seen?
Could it be that MOST OF THE BUILDING is NOT within a few feet of the Windows??(NIST provides similar maps that have windows where no data AT ALL is available, these are colored in BLUE. There are a LOT of Blue windows considering this was one of the most photographed disasters ever.)
Could this be why NIST spent so much time analysing the picture and video evidence so that when they developed the STATE OF THE ART FIRE MODEL to map the INTERNAL fire movement they could used THESE PICTURES to validate the model?
Nah, that couldn't be it.
According to this collection of CT idiots, WE KNOW that they are all part of a Govt Coverup to support Silverstein, Gulliani, Bush, PNAC and the NWO. (the list of people IN on the cover-up grows dail
Arthur
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:00 AM)
you DO ALSO realise the scale differences and the day/night differences between your compared cases of building fire, don't you?
Yes, I noticed the difference between day and night. Did you notice that one building didn't have fires and that the other one was burning like a torch? Did you know that it doesn't matter if it's day or night and that fires are visible both day and night??
Yes, I noticed the difference between day and night. Did you notice that one building didn't have fires and that the other one was burning like a torch? Did you know that it doesn't matter if it's day or night and that fires are visible both day and night??
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 08:43 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:30 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
Hey, ................ you removed the images from the quote of my post that has the proof that the material between the interior box columns is not drywall, it is way too thick! Then you didn't answer my question, all but changing the subject with a HUGE post that has maybe 3 relevant sentences. Somebody killed our 3,000 brothers and sisters and we need the truth here. Somebody is trying to get away with something.
Again I ask.
How can that be drywall?
Here's the interior box columns with the concrete shear wall between them that has been called drywall.
Here is the shot from the left side of the above.
Here is a zoom of that shot and it shows a THICK wall, the steel reinforced concrete shear wall. No way is it drywall and the picture makes it obvious.
Since there are no photos available that show concrete being poured, reasonably available information must be used INSTEAD of assumptions that the government story is correct just because you do not get the evidence you want. It will require some thinking, reasoning and logic. This is NOT TV where the thinking is done for you.
What is your argument/evidence that these are interior columns? I believe that they are exterior columns (based on geometric considerations, which were, admittedly, somewhat approximate; I gave these arguments earlier in the thread.)
See:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=raging
The most relevant definition of "raging" is:
To move with great violence or intensity: A storm raged through the mountains.
You show us pictures of fires which are visible over what, parts of about 3 floors of a 110 storey building? Are these the "raging fires"?
If a bull "raged" over 3% of a ring, it would never get close to the matador. If a storm "raged" over 3% of the mountains, and you were in the 97% of the mountains that did NOT experience the storm, you wouldn't say "Oh, yeah, that storm raged over the mountains! Lucky me that I didn't get wet!".
Can you please show us pictures of the fire after it had "raged" over the remaining 97% of the buildings?
You cannot.
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
Hey, ................ you removed the images from the quote of my post that has the proof that the material between the interior box columns is not drywall, it is way too thick! Then you didn't answer my question, all but changing the subject with a HUGE post that has maybe 3 relevant sentences. Somebody killed our 3,000 brothers and sisters and we need the truth here. Somebody is trying to get away with something.
Again I ask.
How can that be drywall?
Here's the interior box columns with the concrete shear wall between them that has been called drywall.
Here is the shot from the left side of the above.
Here is a zoom of that shot and it shows a THICK wall, the steel reinforced concrete shear wall. No way is it drywall and the picture makes it obvious.
Since there are no photos available that show concrete being poured, reasonably available information must be used INSTEAD of assumptions that the government story is correct just because you do not get the evidence you want. It will require some thinking, reasoning and logic. This is NOT TV where the thinking is done for you.
What is your argument/evidence that these are interior columns? I believe that they are exterior columns (based on geometric considerations, which were, admittedly, somewhat approximate; I gave these arguments earlier in the thread.)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 11:07 PM)
See:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=raging
The most relevant definition of "raging" is:
QUOTE
To move with great violence or intensity: A storm raged through the mountains.
You show us pictures of fires which are visible over what, parts of about 3 floors of a 110 storey building? Are these the "raging fires"?
If a bull "raged" over 3% of a ring, it would never get close to the matador. If a storm "raged" over 3% of the mountains, and you were in the 97% of the mountains that did NOT experience the storm, you wouldn't say "Oh, yeah, that storm raged over the mountains! Lucky me that I didn't get wet!".
Can you please show us pictures of the fire after it had "raged" over the remaining 97% of the buildings?
You cannot.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 5 2006, 11:33 AM)
What is your argument/evidence that these are interior columns? I believe that they are exterior columns (based on geometric considerations, which were, admittedly, somewhat approximate; I gave these arguments earlier in the thread.)
This is the only clear picture of the spire that has decent resolution that has been posted.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg
Its clear from this picture that those are NOT exterior trees.
They have 2 WIDE spandrels that connect them via STRONG welded connections into TREES of three columns each.
Although you occasionally see these trees in the rubble pile in a twisted, deformed shape, you almost NEVER see them not as a TREE.
Since they were bolted together (at the upper spandrel to one tree and the lower spandrel to a different tree) in a staggered fashion, and then the columns were bolted together (Bolted and welded at the mechanical floors) and the bolts were NOT as strong as the welds, they would never fail, leaving a SINGLE COLUMN, and certainly not a SINGLE COLUMN for 18 floors.
If you look at the right most spire you can count the floor connections (where they failed) there are at least 18 of them.
As you get to the bottom of that spire you see the box structure, also a feature ONLY seen in the CORE, not the perimeter columns.
Cristophera
Surely you must realize drawing these conclusions from THIS picture is IFFY at best.
While it is POSSIBLE you are right, so far your evidence is VERY weak.
One of the factors that argues against you is the very evidence you claim to have seen in a video. Why is it that apparently you were the only one who saw it? Where is this film? Why haven't any of the film makers said anything? What about all the people who were building the WTC itself and supposedly pouring this reinforced concrete, the steel workers tying all that rebar, etc etc? Surely SOME of these people would have heard about this by now???
Arthur
This is the only clear picture of the spire that has decent resolution that has been posted.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/shearspirewall.jpg
Its clear from this picture that those are NOT exterior trees.
They have 2 WIDE spandrels that connect them via STRONG welded connections into TREES of three columns each.
Although you occasionally see these trees in the rubble pile in a twisted, deformed shape, you almost NEVER see them not as a TREE.
Since they were bolted together (at the upper spandrel to one tree and the lower spandrel to a different tree) in a staggered fashion, and then the columns were bolted together (Bolted and welded at the mechanical floors) and the bolts were NOT as strong as the welds, they would never fail, leaving a SINGLE COLUMN, and certainly not a SINGLE COLUMN for 18 floors.
If you look at the right most spire you can count the floor connections (where they failed) there are at least 18 of them.
As you get to the bottom of that spire you see the box structure, also a feature ONLY seen in the CORE, not the perimeter columns.
Cristophera
Surely you must realize drawing these conclusions from THIS picture is IFFY at best.
While it is POSSIBLE you are right, so far your evidence is VERY weak.
One of the factors that argues against you is the very evidence you claim to have seen in a video. Why is it that apparently you were the only one who saw it? Where is this film? Why haven't any of the film makers said anything? What about all the people who were building the WTC itself and supposedly pouring this reinforced concrete, the steel workers tying all that rebar, etc etc? Surely SOME of these people would have heard about this by now???
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 5 2006, 12:07 PM)
You show us pictures of fires which are visible over what, parts of about 3 floors of a 110 storey building? Are these the "raging fires"?
If a bull "raged" over 3% of a ring, it would never get close to the matador. If a storm "raged" over 3% of the mountains, and you were in the 97% of the mountains that did NOT experience the storm, you wouldn't say "Oh, yeah, that storm raged over the mountains! Lucky me that I didn't get wet!".
Can you please show us pictures of the fire after it had "raged" over the remaining 97% of the buildings?
You cannot.
What does THAT have to do with ANYTHING????
Why do you think fires had to burn over the entire building to cause a LOCAL COLLAPSE?
Arthur
If a bull "raged" over 3% of a ring, it would never get close to the matador. If a storm "raged" over 3% of the mountains, and you were in the 97% of the mountains that did NOT experience the storm, you wouldn't say "Oh, yeah, that storm raged over the mountains! Lucky me that I didn't get wet!".
Can you please show us pictures of the fire after it had "raged" over the remaining 97% of the buildings?
You cannot.
What does THAT have to do with ANYTHING????
Why do you think fires had to burn over the entire building to cause a LOCAL COLLAPSE?
Arthur
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 5 2006, 02:40 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 5 2006, 04:43 AM)
Look & see...The emperor has no clothes...
Where's the FIRE ???
Can we see close-ups of each of those areas?...
... a magnifying glass perhaps to see these alleged infernos
Welcome, folks... to the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory.
In the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory... fires do not produce flames... only smoke.
Flames do not seek sources of oxygen, but rather tend to escape sources of oxygen by hiding unseen where they will be least noticed.
More LIES????
Of course,
Foxx shows NIST picture 9-6 and then asks rhetorically:
"Can we see close-ups of each of those areas?..."
Which ignores the fact that NIST picture 9-7 is IN FACT two close-ups of that picture.
This is what NIST said about the 9-6 picture (taken just 4 minutes after the crash) Figure 9-6 offers a great deal more resolution than is evident from the way it has been sized. Figure 9-7 shows blowups taken from the photograph.....
But why should I be surprised, in Foxx's world Flames are INTELLIGENT.
In Foxx's world, flames SEEK sources of Oxygen?????
Foxx, How do they do KNOW??? Do they use a fire's version of "spideysense"????
Curious people want to know.
Do, as Foxx suggests, flames actually HIDE or is it that the VAST majority of pictures are at an acute angle and so you can only see a few feet into the towers, or from such a distance that resolution is too low to be definitive?
Could it be that if a flame isn't within a few feet of the windows it generally WON'T be seen?
Could it be that MOST OF THE BUILDING is NOT within a few feet of the Windows??(NIST provides similar maps that have windows where no data AT ALL is available, these are colored in BLUE. There are a LOT of Blue windows considering this was one of the most photographed disasters ever.)
Could this be why NIST spent so much time analysing the picture and video evidence so that when they developed the STATE OF THE ART FIRE MODEL to map the INTERNAL fire movement they could used THESE PICTURES to validate the model?
Nah, that couldn't be it.
According to this collection of CT idiots, WE KNOW that they are all part of a Govt Coverup to support Silverstein, Gulliani, Bush, PNAC and the NWO. (the list of people IN on the cover-up grows dail
Arthur
Your nit-picking criticism of Foxx's use of the anthropomorphic term "seeking" is typical for your side.
Fires are indeed limited by lack of oxygen, as surely as they are limited by lack of fuel. Quite naturally, the fires tend to grow in the direction of most oxygen other things, such as fuel availability, being equal
It's true that, after burning for a while, we expect the highest concentration of oxygen on a floor with broken windows to be in the areas near broken windows (since some fresh air has a chance to enter from there) . Conceivably, on a floor where elevator doors are broken, there could also be air being vented into the interior of that floor from there. Of course, after the fuel burns out, all the oxygen in the world won't make a difference .
In the case of floors where the windows weren't broken or burned through, but there was, somehow, still enough oxygen to allow for a "raging fire", there should not be particularly more oxygen near the windows than in the interior of the building. Nor should there be any less. Therefore, on any given floor, one expects that a "raging fire" will not magically stay away from the windows.
Perhaps you wish to modify your claim along the lines that Foxx suggests: i.e., "shy, raging fires"? I think Foxx has done you a favor, and just look at how you treat him!!!
Frankly, this is all a bit non-sensical because in order to have "raging fires", you would need an ample supply of oxygen. If you assume that you do have ample oxygen, there's no good reason not to expect flames visible in the windows on every floor decimated by the hypothetical "raging fires", at some time during the "raging" - at least until such time as the volume of smoke might obscure them.
The use of the terms "raging fire" and "raging inferno" are attempts to inflict a pseudo-realistic view over what we can see, and not see, with our own eyes.
Speaking of fires, I'd still like to know if anybody has researched the conditions under which the windows should have melted. I would think that we would be able to get a useful limit on the interior temperatures experienced by the windows. Doubtless, NIST's fearless truth seeking sought out this information and it published it somewhere in their report.
Can anybody point out where, exactly NIST has published this information? Thanks.
Where's the FIRE ???
Can we see close-ups of each of those areas?...
... a magnifying glass perhaps to see these alleged infernos
Welcome, folks... to the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory.
In the Amazing Hiding Fires Theory... fires do not produce flames... only smoke.
Flames do not seek sources of oxygen, but rather tend to escape sources of oxygen by hiding unseen where they will be least noticed.
More LIES????
Of course,
Foxx shows NIST picture 9-6 and then asks rhetorically:
"Can we see close-ups of each of those areas?..."
Which ignores the fact that NIST picture 9-7 is IN FACT two close-ups of that picture.
This is what NIST said about the 9-6 picture (taken just 4 minutes after the crash) Figure 9-6 offers a great deal more resolution than is evident from the way it has been sized. Figure 9-7 shows blowups taken from the photograph.....
But why should I be surprised, in Foxx's world Flames are INTELLIGENT.
In Foxx's world, flames SEEK sources of Oxygen?????
Foxx, How do they do KNOW??? Do they use a fire's version of "spideysense"????
Curious people want to know.
Do, as Foxx suggests, flames actually HIDE or is it that the VAST majority of pictures are at an acute angle and so you can only see a few feet into the towers, or from such a distance that resolution is too low to be definitive?
Could it be that if a flame isn't within a few feet of the windows it generally WON'T be seen?
Could it be that MOST OF THE BUILDING is NOT within a few feet of the Windows??(NIST provides similar maps that have windows where no data AT ALL is available, these are colored in BLUE. There are a LOT of Blue windows considering this was one of the most photographed disasters ever.)
Could this be why NIST spent so much time analysing the picture and video evidence so that when they developed the STATE OF THE ART FIRE MODEL to map the INTERNAL fire movement they could used THESE PICTURES to validate the model?
Nah, that couldn't be it.
According to this collection of CT idiots, WE KNOW that they are all part of a Govt Coverup to support Silverstein, Gulliani, Bush, PNAC and the NWO. (the list of people IN on the cover-up grows dail
Arthur
Your nit-picking criticism of Foxx's use of the anthropomorphic term "seeking" is typical for your side.
Fires are indeed limited by lack of oxygen, as surely as they are limited by lack of fuel. Quite naturally, the fires tend to grow in the direction of most oxygen other things, such as fuel availability, being equal
It's true that, after burning for a while, we expect the highest concentration of oxygen on a floor with broken windows to be in the areas near broken windows (since some fresh air has a chance to enter from there) . Conceivably, on a floor where elevator doors are broken, there could also be air being vented into the interior of that floor from there. Of course, after the fuel burns out, all the oxygen in the world won't make a difference .
In the case of floors where the windows weren't broken or burned through, but there was, somehow, still enough oxygen to allow for a "raging fire", there should not be particularly more oxygen near the windows than in the interior of the building. Nor should there be any less. Therefore, on any given floor, one expects that a "raging fire" will not magically stay away from the windows.
Perhaps you wish to modify your claim along the lines that Foxx suggests: i.e., "shy, raging fires"? I think Foxx has done you a favor, and just look at how you treat him!!!
Frankly, this is all a bit non-sensical because in order to have "raging fires", you would need an ample supply of oxygen. If you assume that you do have ample oxygen, there's no good reason not to expect flames visible in the windows on every floor decimated by the hypothetical "raging fires", at some time during the "raging" - at least until such time as the volume of smoke might obscure them.
The use of the terms "raging fire" and "raging inferno" are attempts to inflict a pseudo-realistic view over what we can see, and not see, with our own eyes.
Speaking of fires, I'd still like to know if anybody has researched the conditions under which the windows should have melted. I would think that we would be able to get a useful limit on the interior temperatures experienced by the windows. Doubtless, NIST's fearless truth seeking sought out this information and it published it somewhere in their report.
Can anybody point out where, exactly NIST has published this information? Thanks.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 08:43 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 03:30 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
Hey, ................ you removed the images from the quote of my post that has the proof that the material between the interior box columns is not drywall, it is way too thick! Then you didn't answer my question, all but changing the subject with a HUGE post that has maybe 3 relevant sentences. Somebody killed our 3,000 brothers and sisters and we need the truth here. Somebody is trying to get away with something.
Again I ask.
How can that be drywall?
Here's the interior box columns with the concrete shear wall between them that has been called drywall.
Here is the shot from the left side of the above.
Here is a zoom of that shot and it shows a THICK wall, the steel reinforced concrete shear wall. No way is it drywall and the picture makes it obvious.
Since there are no photos available that show concrete being poured, reasonably available information must be used INSTEAD of assumptions that the government story is correct just because you do not get the evidence you want. It will require some thinking, reasoning and logic. This is NOT TV where the thinking is done for you.
If it was a picture of my "Debunking911" web site I can tell you that as a geocities site I am only allowed so much traffic per day before it shuts down. Other than that I haven't taking any photos off any sites.
I think you may be having a problem with the distance involved. If you like at the long, lone, tallest column you can see what looks like scales or bumps on it. Each one of the represents a whole STORY. Those bumps are whats left of the sheared off from the column to the floor.
It's hard to imagine the size of the towers unless you were there. I often think one of the problems with this debate is the perception of size in these photos. That building was huge and a two story flame in the picture below for instance may look small next to the tower.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east10.jpg
There is a "raging fire" between column 350 and 330 on the 80th floor. Between columns 340 and 335 are flames which you can see shooting up to the 81st floor. (You can see other raging fires but I will concentrate on this one) Though foxx has said this is no raging fire it looks an awful lot like this...
http://wtc.nist.gov/images/WTCFireTestImage3_hires.jpg
To give you a clear example of what those bumps are, here is a photo of core columns which have the floor connections (Bumps) on them. You can see the steelworker's torch cutting something below one of the columns. You can barely see him.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121617m.jpg
What I'm trying to say is what you are seeing as concrete is IMPOSSIBLE to tell from your photo taken from about a mile away.
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?
Re-read my post. I'm saying it could be debris from the collapse and/or drywall. There is no way you can be so sure of what it is from here.
We can sure it is not drywall. Thousands of tons of heavy steel debris, sand and gravel have cascaded around that.
The general debris would have impacted the drywall and comingled with the debris. That's all I'm saying. To know for sure it's a concrete core without any other evidence is a stretch in my view.
Of course you're welcome to conlude what you want but I think the evidence is rather thin for me.
What would have happened to the concrete landings in the core if it didn't have have a concrete wall? I would suspect it would fall in the core and pile up. Is that what it is? I don't know....
Hey, ................ you removed the images from the quote of my post that has the proof that the material between the interior box columns is not drywall, it is way too thick! Then you didn't answer my question, all but changing the subject with a HUGE post that has maybe 3 relevant sentences. Somebody killed our 3,000 brothers and sisters and we need the truth here. Somebody is trying to get away with something.
Again I ask.
How can that be drywall?
Here's the interior box columns with the concrete shear wall between them that has been called drywall.
Here is the shot from the left side of the above.
Here is a zoom of that shot and it shows a THICK wall, the steel reinforced concrete shear wall. No way is it drywall and the picture makes it obvious.
Since there are no photos available that show concrete being poured, reasonably available information must be used INSTEAD of assumptions that the government story is correct just because you do not get the evidence you want. It will require some thinking, reasoning and logic. This is NOT TV where the thinking is done for you.
If it was a picture of my "Debunking911" web site I can tell you that as a geocities site I am only allowed so much traffic per day before it shuts down. Other than that I haven't taking any photos off any sites.
I think you may be having a problem with the distance involved. If you like at the long, lone, tallest column you can see what looks like scales or bumps on it. Each one of the represents a whole STORY. Those bumps are whats left of the sheared off from the column to the floor.
It's hard to imagine the size of the towers unless you were there. I often think one of the problems with this debate is the perception of size in these photos. That building was huge and a two story flame in the picture below for instance may look small next to the tower.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east10.jpg
There is a "raging fire" between column 350 and 330 on the 80th floor. Between columns 340 and 335 are flames which you can see shooting up to the 81st floor. (You can see other raging fires but I will concentrate on this one) Though foxx has said this is no raging fire it looks an awful lot like this...
http://wtc.nist.gov/images/WTCFireTestImage3_hires.jpg
To give you a clear example of what those bumps are, here is a photo of core columns which have the floor connections (Bumps) on them. You can see the steelworker's torch cutting something below one of the columns. You can barely see him.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121617m.jpg
What I'm trying to say is what you are seeing as concrete is IMPOSSIBLE to tell from your photo taken from about a mile away.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 5 2006, 04:51 PM)
Fires are indeed limited by lack of oxygen, as surely as they are limited by lack of fuel. Quite naturally, the fires tend to grow in the direction of most oxygen other things, such as fuel availability, being equal
You make some statements which I find absolutely incredible. This is a perfect example.
Did the plane enter through a door and shut it behind it? Was the building sealed after having an airliner hit at 500 miles an hour?
Of all my posts, that deserved 14 font.
I wont embarrass you by posting the photo of a GAPING HOLE in the building. I wont insult your intelligence. You've done that enough.
You make some statements which I find absolutely incredible. This is a perfect example.
Did the plane enter through a door and shut it behind it? Was the building sealed after having an airliner hit at 500 miles an hour?
Of all my posts, that deserved 14 font.
I wont embarrass you by posting the photo of a GAPING HOLE in the building. I wont insult your intelligence. You've done that enough.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 5 2006, 04:16 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 5 2006, 12:07 PM)
You show us pictures of fires which are visible over what, parts of about 3 floors of a 110 storey building? Are these the "raging fires"?
If a bull "raged" over 3% of a ring, it would never get close to the matador. If a storm "raged" over 3% of the mountains, and you were in the 97% of the mountains that did NOT experience the storm, you wouldn't say "Oh, yeah, that storm raged over the mountains! Lucky me that I didn't get wet!".
Can you please show us pictures of the fire after it had "raged" over the remaining 97% of the buildings?
You cannot.
What does THAT have to do with ANYTHING????
Why do you think fires had to burn over the entire building to cause a LOCAL COLLAPSE?
Arthur
No. Although you might accuse me of nit-picking, the phrase "raging fire" is thrown around loosely. No good. If you want to qualify that by saying "raging fire on Floors X, Y, and Z", I've no great problem with that.
If a bull "raged" over 3% of a ring, it would never get close to the matador. If a storm "raged" over 3% of the mountains, and you were in the 97% of the mountains that did NOT experience the storm, you wouldn't say "Oh, yeah, that storm raged over the mountains! Lucky me that I didn't get wet!".
Can you please show us pictures of the fire after it had "raged" over the remaining 97% of the buildings?
You cannot.
What does THAT have to do with ANYTHING????
Why do you think fires had to burn over the entire building to cause a LOCAL COLLAPSE?
Arthur
No. Although you might accuse me of nit-picking, the phrase "raging fire" is thrown around loosely. No good. If you want to qualify that by saying "raging fire on Floors X, Y, and Z", I've no great problem with that.
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 5 2006, 04:38 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
RC, More interesting would be the test of pathic forces. If you hit Foxx with a baseball bat does Mel feel it?
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
RC, More interesting would be the test of pathic forces. If you hit Foxx with a baseball bat does Mel feel it?
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 5 2006, 05:07 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 5 2006, 04:16 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 5 2006, 12:07 PM)
You show us pictures of fires which are visible over what, parts of about 3 floors of a 110 storey building? Are these the "raging fires"?
If a bull "raged" over 3% of a ring, it would never get close to the matador. If a storm "raged" over 3% of the mountains, and you were in the 97% of the mountains that did NOT experience the storm, you wouldn't say "Oh, yeah, that storm raged over the mountains! Lucky me that I didn't get wet!".
Can you please show us pictures of the fire after it had "raged" over the remaining 97% of the buildings?
You cannot.
What does THAT have to do with ANYTHING????
Why do you think fires had to burn over the entire building to cause a LOCAL COLLAPSE?
Arthur
No. Although you might accuse me of nit-picking, the phrase "raging fire" is thrown around loosely. No good. If you want to qualify that by saying "raging fire on Floors X, Y, and Z", I've no great problem with that.
I believe everyone is responding to your sidekick Foxx who brought it up.
Group A: There was no X seen on that day
Group B: what about this! It clearly shows X
Group A: I think the letter X is being thrown around to much.
Group B:
If a bull "raged" over 3% of a ring, it would never get close to the matador. If a storm "raged" over 3% of the mountains, and you were in the 97% of the mountains that did NOT experience the storm, you wouldn't say "Oh, yeah, that storm raged over the mountains! Lucky me that I didn't get wet!".
Can you please show us pictures of the fire after it had "raged" over the remaining 97% of the buildings?
You cannot.
What does THAT have to do with ANYTHING????
Why do you think fires had to burn over the entire building to cause a LOCAL COLLAPSE?
Arthur
No. Although you might accuse me of nit-picking, the phrase "raging fire" is thrown around loosely. No good. If you want to qualify that by saying "raging fire on Floors X, Y, and Z", I've no great problem with that.
I believe everyone is responding to your sidekick Foxx who brought it up.
Group A: There was no X seen on that day
Group B: what about this! It clearly shows X
Group A: I think the letter X is being thrown around to much.
Group B:
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 5 2006, 12:51 PM)
Your nit-picking criticism of Foxx's use of the anthropomorphic term "seeking" is typical for your side.
Fires are indeed limited by lack of oxygen, as surely as they are limited by lack of fuel. Quite naturally, the fires tend to grow in the direction of most oxygen other things, such as fuel availability, being equal
It's true that, after burning for a while, we expect the highest concentration of oxygen on a floor with broken windows to be in the areas near broken windows (since some fresh air has a chance to enter from there) . Conceivably, on a floor where elevator doors are broken, there could also be air being vented into the interior of that floor from there. Of course, after the fuel burns out, all the oxygen in the world won't make a difference .
In the case of floors where the windows weren't broken or burned through, but there was, somehow, still enough oxygen to allow for a "raging fire", there should not be particularly more oxygen near the windows than in the interior of the building. Nor should there be any less. Therefore, on any given floor, one expects that a "raging fire" will not magically stay away from the windows.
Perhaps you wish to modify your claim along the lines that Foxx suggests: i.e., "shy, raging fires"? I think Foxx has done you a favor, and just look at how you treat him!!!
Frankly, this is all a bit non-sensical because in order to have "raging fires", you would need an ample supply of oxygen. If you assume that you do have ample oxygen, there's no good reason not to expect flames visible in the windows on every floor decimated by the hypothetical "raging fires", at some time during the "raging" - at least until such time as the volume of smoke might obscure them.
The use of the terms "raging fire" and "raging inferno" are attempts to inflict a pseudo-realistic view over what we can see, and not see, with our own eyes.
Speaking of fires, I'd still like to know if anybody has researched the conditions under which the windows should have melted. I would think that we would be able to get a useful limit on the interior temperatures experienced by the windows. Doubtless, NIST's fearless truth seeking sought out this information and it published it somewhere in their report.
Can anybody point out where, exactly NIST has published this information? Thanks.
Fires generally grow UP
Fires generally DON'T grow INTO a wind, but move WITH IT
There is NO REASON why one should expect to see fires at the windows based upon them SEEKING OXYGEN.
There ARE other reasons, primarily because fire causes gases to expand, expanding gasses will EXIT a window and if hot enough and there is fuel will create fires at the windows. However expanding gas will tend to go UP and to take the path of least resistance (as any fluid would), there WERE VERTICAL PATHWAYS IN THE CORE OF THE TOWERS. We KNOW people broke windows ABOVE THE FIRE (ALWAYS a BAD idea) which created further CHIMNEY effects. This will tend to PULL fires AWAY from the windows. As will a WIND (on the windward side, it will tend to pull towards the windows on the Lee side)
There are other reasons for fire behavior, which IS COMPLEX, BUT none of them have to do with an EXPECTATION that one WOULD see fires at the windows, or if one doesn't that means the fires are not burning inside the HUGE area of the towers.
If NIST could have determined FROM THE PICTURES what was going on in the towers they wouldn't have needed the STATE OF THE ART FIRE SIMULATOR.
As to glass in the windows.
You would expect them to break before they melted, windows couldn't stand the stress from the temp differences of 1000 C on one side and 20C on the other.
Temps for melting are ~ 1400C and higher depending on the glass.
Sustained high temps in the towers probably maxed out 3 or 4 hundred C below this
Arthur
Fires are indeed limited by lack of oxygen, as surely as they are limited by lack of fuel. Quite naturally, the fires tend to grow in the direction of most oxygen other things, such as fuel availability, being equal
It's true that, after burning for a while, we expect the highest concentration of oxygen on a floor with broken windows to be in the areas near broken windows (since some fresh air has a chance to enter from there) . Conceivably, on a floor where elevator doors are broken, there could also be air being vented into the interior of that floor from there. Of course, after the fuel burns out, all the oxygen in the world won't make a difference .
In the case of floors where the windows weren't broken or burned through, but there was, somehow, still enough oxygen to allow for a "raging fire", there should not be particularly more oxygen near the windows than in the interior of the building. Nor should there be any less. Therefore, on any given floor, one expects that a "raging fire" will not magically stay away from the windows.
Perhaps you wish to modify your claim along the lines that Foxx suggests: i.e., "shy, raging fires"? I think Foxx has done you a favor, and just look at how you treat him!!!
Frankly, this is all a bit non-sensical because in order to have "raging fires", you would need an ample supply of oxygen. If you assume that you do have ample oxygen, there's no good reason not to expect flames visible in the windows on every floor decimated by the hypothetical "raging fires", at some time during the "raging" - at least until such time as the volume of smoke might obscure them.
The use of the terms "raging fire" and "raging inferno" are attempts to inflict a pseudo-realistic view over what we can see, and not see, with our own eyes.
Speaking of fires, I'd still like to know if anybody has researched the conditions under which the windows should have melted. I would think that we would be able to get a useful limit on the interior temperatures experienced by the windows. Doubtless, NIST's fearless truth seeking sought out this information and it published it somewhere in their report.
Can anybody point out where, exactly NIST has published this information? Thanks.
Fires generally grow UP
Fires generally DON'T grow INTO a wind, but move WITH IT
There is NO REASON why one should expect to see fires at the windows based upon them SEEKING OXYGEN.
There ARE other reasons, primarily because fire causes gases to expand, expanding gasses will EXIT a window and if hot enough and there is fuel will create fires at the windows. However expanding gas will tend to go UP and to take the path of least resistance (as any fluid would), there WERE VERTICAL PATHWAYS IN THE CORE OF THE TOWERS. We KNOW people broke windows ABOVE THE FIRE (ALWAYS a BAD idea) which created further CHIMNEY effects. This will tend to PULL fires AWAY from the windows. As will a WIND (on the windward side, it will tend to pull towards the windows on the Lee side)
There are other reasons for fire behavior, which IS COMPLEX, BUT none of them have to do with an EXPECTATION that one WOULD see fires at the windows, or if one doesn't that means the fires are not burning inside the HUGE area of the towers.
If NIST could have determined FROM THE PICTURES what was going on in the towers they wouldn't have needed the STATE OF THE ART FIRE SIMULATOR.
As to glass in the windows.
You would expect them to break before they melted, windows couldn't stand the stress from the temp differences of 1000 C on one side and 20C on the other.
Temps for melting are ~ 1400C and higher depending on the glass.
Sustained high temps in the towers probably maxed out 3 or 4 hundred C below this
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 05:04 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 5 2006, 04:51 PM)
Fires are indeed limited by lack of oxygen, as surely as they are limited by lack of fuel. Quite naturally, the fires tend to grow in the direction of most oxygen other things, such as fuel availability, being equal
You make some statements which I find absolutely incredible. This is a perfect example.
Did the plane enter through a door and shut it behind it? Was the building sealed after having an airliner hit at 500 miles an hour?
Of all my posts, that deserved 14 font.
I wont embarrass you by posting the photo of a GAPING HOLE in the building. I wont insult your intelligence. You've done that enough.
What prevented this massive flow of oxygen from the "gaping hole" reaching the windows of floors where fire is not in evidence?
Are you now going to postulate "shy fuel"??
Are you now going to tell us: "The oxygen wasn't shy, so it didn't stay away from the windows. But that fuel - combustible office contents - as soon as it "found out" about the collision, it picked itself up and moved away from the windows!"
Is this what you're suggesting? I don't think so.
So, I repeat the first question:
What prevented this massive flow of oxygen from the "gaping hole" reaching the windows of floors where fire is not in evidence?
You make some statements which I find absolutely incredible. This is a perfect example.
Did the plane enter through a door and shut it behind it? Was the building sealed after having an airliner hit at 500 miles an hour?
Of all my posts, that deserved 14 font.
I wont embarrass you by posting the photo of a GAPING HOLE in the building. I wont insult your intelligence. You've done that enough.
What prevented this massive flow of oxygen from the "gaping hole" reaching the windows of floors where fire is not in evidence?
Are you now going to postulate "shy fuel"??
Are you now going to tell us: "The oxygen wasn't shy, so it didn't stay away from the windows. But that fuel - combustible office contents - as soon as it "found out" about the collision, it picked itself up and moved away from the windows!"
Is this what you're suggesting? I don't think so.
So, I repeat the first question:
What prevented this massive flow of oxygen from the "gaping hole" reaching the windows of floors where fire is not in evidence?
The spire structure looks like inner core columns to me. Those are thick columns and widely spaced. The perimeter columns don't look like that.
Also, there seems to be a rectangular pattern to the solid material on the columns. You can see the height of each story on the columns. Assuming a story is around 12 feet, the size of the 'blocks' appear to be about 4 feet or 8 feet. Maybe 8 foot gypsum or concrete in-fill panels staggered at 4-foot intervals? I'm not sure. It could be pixel artifacts in the pic, but it does look like panels.
It almost appears as if there are two or more layers of material.
Also, there seems to be a rectangular pattern to the solid material on the columns. You can see the height of each story on the columns. Assuming a story is around 12 feet, the size of the 'blocks' appear to be about 4 feet or 8 feet. Maybe 8 foot gypsum or concrete in-fill panels staggered at 4-foot intervals? I'm not sure. It could be pixel artifacts in the pic, but it does look like panels.
It almost appears as if there are two or more layers of material.
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 5 2006, 08:38 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 5 2006, 05:21 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 05:04 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 5 2006, 04:51 PM)
Fires are indeed limited by lack of oxygen, as surely as they are limited by lack of fuel. Quite naturally, the fires tend to grow in the direction of most oxygen other things, such as fuel availability, being equal
You make some statements which I find absolutely incredible. This is a perfect example.
Did the plane enter through a door and shut it behind it? Was the building sealed after having an airliner hit at 500 miles an hour?
Of all my posts, that deserved 14 font.
I wont embarrass you by posting the photo of a GAPING HOLE in the building. I wont insult your intelligence. You've done that enough.
What prevented this massive flow of oxygen from the "gaping hole" reaching the windows of floors where fire is not in evidence?
Are you now going to postulate "shy fuel"??
Are you now going to tell us: "The oxygen wasn't shy, so it didn't stay away from the windows. But that fuel - combustible office contents - as soon as it "found out" about the collision, it picked itself up and moved away from the windows!"
Is this what you're suggesting? I don't think so.
So, I repeat the first question:
What prevented this massive flow of oxygen from the "gaping hole" reaching the windows of floors where fire is not in evidence?
Do you think the impact of an airliner might push a few pieces of furniture around? And that furniture might pile up by the buildings furthest point? What about the possibility that the 81st floor is now on the 80th because the floor collapsed. Wouldn't the concrete pan created by an effect like this keep fires on one side of the building?
But this is more speculation on my part which is undoubtedly going to be met with "That's silly, you can't prove it." No but there is a photo where the women is standing by the hole created by the plane which clearly shows the 80th floor sagging down to the 79th. "If" a fire started on the 80th floor (Which is now on the 79th) corner it wouldn't go far because the floor sagged upward away from that corner.
I bring this up not because it happened exactly the way I envision but because you wont even entertain the thought... There are many possibilities yet your every post seems to be to create doubt. Critical thinking is not a one sided exercise. It's not only about casting doubt but thinking of plausible possibilities. The absence of evidence to prove or disprove the possibility doesn't mean the possibility could not have happened.
Look at this photo. It shows a "Raging fire" above the women in the corner and another smaller fire below her. These fires are compartmentalized by the floor/impact debris.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w...aving-close.avi
You make some statements which I find absolutely incredible. This is a perfect example.
Did the plane enter through a door and shut it behind it? Was the building sealed after having an airliner hit at 500 miles an hour?
Of all my posts, that deserved 14 font.
I wont embarrass you by posting the photo of a GAPING HOLE in the building. I wont insult your intelligence. You've done that enough.
What prevented this massive flow of oxygen from the "gaping hole" reaching the windows of floors where fire is not in evidence?
Are you now going to postulate "shy fuel"??
Are you now going to tell us: "The oxygen wasn't shy, so it didn't stay away from the windows. But that fuel - combustible office contents - as soon as it "found out" about the collision, it picked itself up and moved away from the windows!"
Is this what you're suggesting? I don't think so.
So, I repeat the first question:
What prevented this massive flow of oxygen from the "gaping hole" reaching the windows of floors where fire is not in evidence?
Do you think the impact of an airliner might push a few pieces of furniture around? And that furniture might pile up by the buildings furthest point? What about the possibility that the 81st floor is now on the 80th because the floor collapsed. Wouldn't the concrete pan created by an effect like this keep fires on one side of the building?
But this is more speculation on my part which is undoubtedly going to be met with "That's silly, you can't prove it." No but there is a photo where the women is standing by the hole created by the plane which clearly shows the 80th floor sagging down to the 79th. "If" a fire started on the 80th floor (Which is now on the 79th) corner it wouldn't go far because the floor sagged upward away from that corner.
I bring this up not because it happened exactly the way I envision but because you wont even entertain the thought... There are many possibilities yet your every post seems to be to create doubt. Critical thinking is not a one sided exercise. It's not only about casting doubt but thinking of plausible possibilities. The absence of evidence to prove or disprove the possibility doesn't mean the possibility could not have happened.
Look at this photo. It shows a "Raging fire" above the women in the corner and another smaller fire below her. These fires are compartmentalized by the floor/impact debris.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w...aving-close.avi
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 5 2006, 06:09 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 5 2006, 08:38 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 10:32 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 5 2006, 06:09 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 5 2006, 08:38 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.
I would associate it with the reaction of the person it was intended for. Foxx acknowledged it was a threat although harmless. RC then proceeded to call him paranoid and did not apologize or retract the threat.
I have not read any Arabs objecting to Mel comments unless that is your race.
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.
I would associate it with the reaction of the person it was intended for. Foxx acknowledged it was a threat although harmless. RC then proceeded to call him paranoid and did not apologize or retract the threat.
I have not read any Arabs objecting to Mel comments unless that is your race.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 5 2006, 06:58 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 10:32 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 5 2006, 06:09 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 5 2006, 08:38 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.
I would associate it with the reaction of the person it was intended for. Foxx acknowledged it was a threat although harmless. RC then proceeded to call him paranoid and did not retract the threat.
I have not read any Arabs objecting to Mel comments unless that is your race.
Oh I see, So it's moral to degrade another race as long as no one from that race reads it... Is that in your bible somewhere?
As Al Frankin would say, it's still a joke even if the person the joke is based on doesn't "get it."
Note that's a joke on one person's thick headedness and not a whole race of people. He didn't say all canadians have thick skulls because Foxx does. That would be racist.
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.
I would associate it with the reaction of the person it was intended for. Foxx acknowledged it was a threat although harmless. RC then proceeded to call him paranoid and did not retract the threat.
I have not read any Arabs objecting to Mel comments unless that is your race.
Oh I see, So it's moral to degrade another race as long as no one from that race reads it... Is that in your bible somewhere?
As Al Frankin would say, it's still a joke even if the person the joke is based on doesn't "get it."
Note that's a joke on one person's thick headedness and not a whole race of people. He didn't say all canadians have thick skulls because Foxx does. That would be racist.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 11:08 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 5 2006, 06:58 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 10:32 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 5 2006, 06:09 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 5 2006, 08:38 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.
I would associate it with the reaction of the person it was intended for. Foxx acknowledged it was a threat although harmless. RC then proceeded to call him paranoid and did not retract the threat.
I have not read any Arabs objecting to Mel comments unless that is your race.
Oh I see, So it's moral to degrade another race as long as no one from that race reads it... Is that in your bible somewhere?
As Al Frankin would say, it's still a joke even if the person the joke is based on doesn't "get it."
Note that's a joke on one person's thick headedness and not a whole race of people. He didn't say all canadians have thick skulls because Foxx does. That would be racist.
I repeat, What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat.
I have nothing more to add Common Sence/ Shnobster.
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.
I would associate it with the reaction of the person it was intended for. Foxx acknowledged it was a threat although harmless. RC then proceeded to call him paranoid and did not retract the threat.
I have not read any Arabs objecting to Mel comments unless that is your race.
Oh I see, So it's moral to degrade another race as long as no one from that race reads it... Is that in your bible somewhere?
As Al Frankin would say, it's still a joke even if the person the joke is based on doesn't "get it."
Note that's a joke on one person's thick headedness and not a whole race of people. He didn't say all canadians have thick skulls because Foxx does. That would be racist.
I repeat, What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat.
I have nothing more to add Common Sence/ Shnobster.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 5 2006, 02:58 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 10:32 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 5 2006, 06:09 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 5 2006, 08:38 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.
I would associate it with the reaction of the person it was intended for. Foxx acknowledged it was a threat although harmless. RC then proceeded to call him paranoid and did not retract the threat.
I have not read any Arabs objecting to Mel comments unless that is your race.
It was an analogy, in typical Aussie style, but since they are ~ 1/3 the circumference of the globe apart, considering it a threat is STUPID.
Why should RC apologize for an analogy?
Much earlier in this thread I addressed the issue of this being a cover-up.
I suggested that if the people who pulled this off weren't shy about killing thousands of people and the ONLY thing they possibly feared was discovery, why were they not getting rid of the few people who were trying to "out" them?
I asked one of the CT'ers, if You REALLY believe there are MIB doing this stuff, "Why are you still breathing?"
Someone took that as a threat.
The problem, as I see it, is apparently CT'ers by nature are PARANOID. Some worse than others, but they all seem to see a SINISTER side to damn near EVERYTHING. Frater and newt go on about NWO and Trondh has "proof" going back to Kennedy that everything, including the Moon Landings, was faked or falsely reported.
CT'ers paranoia is such that they ascribe ulterior motives to the folks at NIST. Most of these people have probably been working there for years. It ain't like the investigators are political appointees. But SUDDENLY this diverse group of people is willing to COVER UP the MURDER of thousands of their countrymen? For Bush & Cheney???? Not likely.
It takes REAL PARANOIA to believe that.
Arthur
It was an analogy, in typical Aussie style, but since they are ~ 1/3 the circumference of the globe apart, considering it a threat is STUPID.
Why should RC apologize for an analogy?
Much earlier in this thread I addressed the issue of this being a cover-up.
I suggested that if the people who pulled this off weren't shy about killing thousands of people and the ONLY thing they possibly feared was discovery, why were they not getting rid of the few people who were trying to "out" them?
I asked one of the CT'ers, if You REALLY believe there are MIB doing this stuff, "Why are you still breathing?"
Someone took that as a threat.
The problem, as I see it, is apparently CT'ers by nature are PARANOID. Some worse than others, but they all seem to see a SINISTER side to damn near EVERYTHING. Frater and newt go on about NWO and Trondh has "proof" going back to Kennedy that everything, including the Moon Landings, was faked or falsely reported.
CT'ers paranoia is such that they ascribe ulterior motives to the folks at NIST. Most of these people have probably been working there for years. It ain't like the investigators are political appointees. But SUDDENLY this diverse group of people is willing to COVER UP the MURDER of thousands of their countrymen? For Bush & Cheney???? Not likely.
It takes REAL PARANOIA to believe that.
Arthur
Oh really Arthur, how do we know he is a typical Aussie? Everything about him seams fake, and he has signed off with CIAO. The CIA admittedly commits 100,000 crimes a year.
The CIA Commits Over 100,000 Serious Crimes Per Year
The CS [clandestine service] is the only part of the IC [intelligence community], indeed of the government, where hundreds of employees on a daily basis are directed to break extremely serious laws in countries around the world in the face of frequently sophisticated efforts by foreign governments to catch them. A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) DO [Directorate of Operations] officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the US but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/i...1/ic21_toc.html
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.
I would associate it with the reaction of the person it was intended for. Foxx acknowledged it was a threat although harmless. RC then proceeded to call him paranoid and did not retract the threat.
I have not read any Arabs objecting to Mel comments unless that is your race.
It was an analogy, in typical Aussie style, but since they are ~ 1/3 the circumference of the globe apart, considering it a threat is STUPID.
Why should RC apologize for an analogy?
Much earlier in this thread I addressed the issue of this being a cover-up.
I suggested that if the people who pulled this off weren't shy about killing thousands of people and the ONLY thing they possibly feared was discovery, why were they not getting rid of the few people who were trying to "out" them?
I asked one of the CT'ers, if You REALLY believe there are MIB doing this stuff, "Why are you still breathing?"
Someone took that as a threat.
The problem, as I see it, is apparently CT'ers by nature are PARANOID. Some worse than others, but they all seem to see a SINISTER side to damn near EVERYTHING. Frater and newt go on about NWO and Trondh has "proof" going back to Kennedy that everything, including the Moon Landings, was faked or falsely reported.
CT'ers paranoia is such that they ascribe ulterior motives to the folks at NIST. Most of these people have probably been working there for years. It ain't like the investigators are political appointees. But SUDDENLY this diverse group of people is willing to COVER UP the MURDER of thousands of their countrymen? For Bush & Cheney???? Not likely.
It takes REAL PARANOIA to believe that.
Arthur
Re: Raging Invisible Fires
I will use the photo recently posted from the NIST Fire Tests in an attempt to explain of few principles of FIRE.
http://wtc.nist.gov/images/WTCFireTestImage3_hires.jpg
I don't recall whether NIST piled office contents into their test facility as if to simulate debris piles, or whether they were testing contents as if set up to simulate the normal conditions, but either way it doesn't matter. The important thing to notice which is clearly visible in the photo is fire behaviour. Fire is not an intelligent thinking thing, that can change its basic behaviour at its own will.
When something begins to burn it gives off smoke. Smoke is unburned (or incompletely burned fuel particles). If a fire is so hot that it burns all fuel completely there will be no smoke.
Initially, the smoke generated from a low intensity fire is not at the proper ignition level due to either a lack of heat or oxygen for complete burning, so it just rises away from the fire in the heated air. This heated air then seeks the path of least resistance to escape and will always escape through openings (such as broken windows).
Clear to see in the above photo. Any arguements?
If the smoke begins to build due to an increasing fire, but cannot escape fast enough, it will build in concentration near the ceiling. The smoke particles will increase in temperature to the point that they are ripe for ignition. However if the fire itself is consuming the available oxygen (thus not providing for the proper oxygen / fuel mixture at which the smoke particles can ignite) the smoke particles will keep absorbing heat until they become explosive. All that is needed is a fresh input of oxygen (like someone opening a door or window). This is called flashover - a very dangerous condition that all firemen are acutely aware of, and try to take steps to avoid.
However, if this heated smoke finds an escape path such as a window (adding a fresh oxygen supply), this fuel will ignite and flames will be seen to be coming out of windows. (In this case, it will not be coming out of the windows in an explosive event but rather as a stream of fire).
This is a natural behavior in all 'raging' fires. That is WHY in all raging infernos you will see flames coming out of windows (whether it is day or night).
As the smoke (fuel particles) ignite this again adds heat to the fire, and given enough oxygen the 'office contents' burn with greater intensity (the fire increases)... which produces more smoke which also ignites...adding more heat again... and the fire will grow exponentially until all the fuel is burned up. This is known fire behaviour.
To say that there was a raging inferno hidden unseen within the building generating huge quantities of smoke, but that the smoke would NOT catch fire under these conditions is to say that this fire did NOT obey the 'laws' of fire behaviour.
NIST would have us believe that air temperatures near the ceiling would be reaching 1000 C. This is well beyond the ignition point of smoke particles. So wherever we see smoke emerging from the building we WOULD SEE FLAMES.
These flames (of the burning smoke particles) would be coming out of all openings chasing the escaping fuel, as it nears the opening and finds even more oxygen this will feed the fire (flames) even more furiously and the flames will chase this escaping fuel until such time as the unburnt fuel cools enough that it can escape without ignition as smoke. That cooling would only take place once the smoke has exited the building and cools off.
The impression some seem to be promoting here is that once the fuel (office contents) near the window openings have burned away the 'fire' will be at locations out of view, and therefore that is the reason we don't see flames. This idea reveals that those promoting such nonsense either do not understand fire behaviour (or have an agenda).
The fuel is ALWAYS at the windows. Smoke IS fuel.
The people promoting this Unseen Fire conditions seem to have some theory that smoke is just an unburnable byproduct of fire, and no one should believe that. Look at any 'raging infernos' and you will see flames coming out of every opening chasing this freely available fuel.
This principle is clearly evident in raging forest fires that we have all seen (at least in pictures). What do you think is burning in the sky in this picture? What are those flames feeding upon? There are no trees in the sky. The flames are coming from the smoke particles which are on fire.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/330ol.jpg
I find it difficult to believe that on a science physics forum people seem to be unaware of these facts, and ignorantly try to promote the idea that the smoke escaping from the building would not be flaming (if the WTC towers and WTC 7 had raging infernos anywhere inside).
Here is a photo from NIST which they use to show a typical office layout in the towers. The wall to the right is the core.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/01office.jpg
Now, if all these office furnishings were intensely burning, there would certainly be lots of smoke and heat. The smoke immediately above the office contents on fire would also be burning especially IF (as NIST claims) the air temperatures were reaching 1000 C....but some of the smoke would head toward the openings to escape... the flames would feed on and follow that smoke (fuel) until the point that it cooled enough (outside of the building) to not support combusion.
NIST (and the fairy tale believers) would have you believe that there were huge raging fires inside the building creating temperatures sufficent to buckle steel, yet somehow not enough temperatures to catch the escaping smoke coming out of the openings on fire.
It simply astounds me how anyone can believe this nonsense. And it IS nonsense - because it does not make sense. Allegedly we have extremely high temperatures and heat being generated by these fires, yet soon as the smoke reaches the openings it immediately cools to the point which won't support the combustion of that superheated fuel.
Now arthur and schneiby, either admit that you are
a --- purposeful disinformationists
b --- simply not very intelligent
c --- do not really understand fire behaviour
d --- mistaken in your previous promotion that huge fires would not result in flames being seen coming out of every opening.
e --- all of the above.
OR start explaining in a rational sense how flames could hide inside the building in any kind of an inferno.
I will use the photo recently posted from the NIST Fire Tests in an attempt to explain of few principles of FIRE.
http://wtc.nist.gov/images/WTCFireTestImage3_hires.jpg
I don't recall whether NIST piled office contents into their test facility as if to simulate debris piles, or whether they were testing contents as if set up to simulate the normal conditions, but either way it doesn't matter. The important thing to notice which is clearly visible in the photo is fire behaviour. Fire is not an intelligent thinking thing, that can change its basic behaviour at its own will.
When something begins to burn it gives off smoke. Smoke is unburned (or incompletely burned fuel particles). If a fire is so hot that it burns all fuel completely there will be no smoke.
Initially, the smoke generated from a low intensity fire is not at the proper ignition level due to either a lack of heat or oxygen for complete burning, so it just rises away from the fire in the heated air. This heated air then seeks the path of least resistance to escape and will always escape through openings (such as broken windows).
Clear to see in the above photo. Any arguements?
If the smoke begins to build due to an increasing fire, but cannot escape fast enough, it will build in concentration near the ceiling. The smoke particles will increase in temperature to the point that they are ripe for ignition. However if the fire itself is consuming the available oxygen (thus not providing for the proper oxygen / fuel mixture at which the smoke particles can ignite) the smoke particles will keep absorbing heat until they become explosive. All that is needed is a fresh input of oxygen (like someone opening a door or window). This is called flashover - a very dangerous condition that all firemen are acutely aware of, and try to take steps to avoid.
However, if this heated smoke finds an escape path such as a window (adding a fresh oxygen supply), this fuel will ignite and flames will be seen to be coming out of windows. (In this case, it will not be coming out of the windows in an explosive event but rather as a stream of fire).
This is a natural behavior in all 'raging' fires. That is WHY in all raging infernos you will see flames coming out of windows (whether it is day or night).
As the smoke (fuel particles) ignite this again adds heat to the fire, and given enough oxygen the 'office contents' burn with greater intensity (the fire increases)... which produces more smoke which also ignites...adding more heat again... and the fire will grow exponentially until all the fuel is burned up. This is known fire behaviour.
To say that there was a raging inferno hidden unseen within the building generating huge quantities of smoke, but that the smoke would NOT catch fire under these conditions is to say that this fire did NOT obey the 'laws' of fire behaviour.
NIST would have us believe that air temperatures near the ceiling would be reaching 1000 C. This is well beyond the ignition point of smoke particles. So wherever we see smoke emerging from the building we WOULD SEE FLAMES.
These flames (of the burning smoke particles) would be coming out of all openings chasing the escaping fuel, as it nears the opening and finds even more oxygen this will feed the fire (flames) even more furiously and the flames will chase this escaping fuel until such time as the unburnt fuel cools enough that it can escape without ignition as smoke. That cooling would only take place once the smoke has exited the building and cools off.
The impression some seem to be promoting here is that once the fuel (office contents) near the window openings have burned away the 'fire' will be at locations out of view, and therefore that is the reason we don't see flames. This idea reveals that those promoting such nonsense either do not understand fire behaviour (or have an agenda).
The fuel is ALWAYS at the windows. Smoke IS fuel.
The people promoting this Unseen Fire conditions seem to have some theory that smoke is just an unburnable byproduct of fire, and no one should believe that. Look at any 'raging infernos' and you will see flames coming out of every opening chasing this freely available fuel.
This principle is clearly evident in raging forest fires that we have all seen (at least in pictures). What do you think is burning in the sky in this picture? What are those flames feeding upon? There are no trees in the sky. The flames are coming from the smoke particles which are on fire.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/330ol.jpg
I find it difficult to believe that on a science physics forum people seem to be unaware of these facts, and ignorantly try to promote the idea that the smoke escaping from the building would not be flaming (if the WTC towers and WTC 7 had raging infernos anywhere inside).
Here is a photo from NIST which they use to show a typical office layout in the towers. The wall to the right is the core.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/01office.jpg
Now, if all these office furnishings were intensely burning, there would certainly be lots of smoke and heat. The smoke immediately above the office contents on fire would also be burning especially IF (as NIST claims) the air temperatures were reaching 1000 C....but some of the smoke would head toward the openings to escape... the flames would feed on and follow that smoke (fuel) until the point that it cooled enough (outside of the building) to not support combusion.
NIST (and the fairy tale believers) would have you believe that there were huge raging fires inside the building creating temperatures sufficent to buckle steel, yet somehow not enough temperatures to catch the escaping smoke coming out of the openings on fire.
It simply astounds me how anyone can believe this nonsense. And it IS nonsense - because it does not make sense. Allegedly we have extremely high temperatures and heat being generated by these fires, yet soon as the smoke reaches the openings it immediately cools to the point which won't support the combustion of that superheated fuel.
Now arthur and schneiby, either admit that you are
a --- purposeful disinformationists
b --- simply not very intelligent
c --- do not really understand fire behaviour
d --- mistaken in your previous promotion that huge fires would not result in flames being seen coming out of every opening.
e --- all of the above.
OR start explaining in a rational sense how flames could hide inside the building in any kind of an inferno.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 5 2006, 01:07 PM)
Although you might accuse me of nit-picking, the phrase "raging fire" is thrown around loosely. No good. If you want to qualify that by saying "raging fire on Floors X, Y, and Z", I've no great problem with that.
Do you think there could be fires burning within the towers that were NOT visible?
Could these be raging and yet not visible?
Or is a criteria for instensity the ability to see it, even though we KNOW that thick smoke will completely COVER the existance of a fire.
Like I said before, if NIST could have relied on these pictures there would have been no need for a MODEL.
If you take a band within ~30 feet of the windows and assume you can see everything within that band, that STILL leaves 50% of the towers unseen.
Arthur
Do you think there could be fires burning within the towers that were NOT visible?
Could these be raging and yet not visible?
Or is a criteria for instensity the ability to see it, even though we KNOW that thick smoke will completely COVER the existance of a fire.
Like I said before, if NIST could have relied on these pictures there would have been no need for a MODEL.
If you take a band within ~30 feet of the windows and assume you can see everything within that band, that STILL leaves 50% of the towers unseen.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 5 2006, 11:18 AM)
It was an analogy, in typical Aussie style, but since they are ~ 1/3 the circumference of the globe apart, considering it a threat is STUPID.
Why should RC apologize for an analogy?
Much earlier in this thread I addressed the issue of this being a cover-up.
I suggested that if the people who pulled this off weren't shy about killing thousands of people and the ONLY thing they possibly feared was discovery, why were they not getting rid of the few people who were trying to "out" them?
I asked one of the CT'ers, if You REALLY believe there are MIB doing this stuff, "Why are you still breathing?"
Someone took that as a threat.
The problem, as I see it, is apparently CT'ers by nature are PARANOID. Some worse than others, but they all seem to see a SINISTER side to damn near EVERYTHING. Frater and newt go on about NWO and Trondh has "proof" going back to Kennedy that everything, including the Moon Landings, was faked or falsely reported.
CT'ers paranoia is such that they ascribe ulterior motives to the folks at NIST. Most of these people have probably been working there for years. It ain't like the investigators are political appointees. But SUDDENLY this diverse group of people is willing to COVER UP the MURDER of thousands of their countrymen? For Bush & Cheney???? Not likely.
It takes REAL PARANOIA to believe that.
Arthur
Oh really Arthur, how do we know he is a typical Aussie? Everything about him seams fake, and he has signed off with CIAO. The CIA admittedly commits 100,000 crimes a year.
The CIA Commits Over 100,000 Serious Crimes Per Year
The CS [clandestine service] is the only part of the IC [intelligence community], indeed of the government, where hundreds of employees on a daily basis are directed to break extremely serious laws in countries around the world in the face of frequently sophisticated efforts by foreign governments to catch them. A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) DO [Directorate of Operations] officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the US but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/i...1/ic21_toc.html
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 07:08 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 5 2006, 06:58 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 5 2006, 10:32 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 5 2006, 06:09 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 5 2006, 08:38 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 5 2006, 03:19 AM)
To illustrate: If you took the same force of a baseball bat to your head and spread that force evenly over every inch of your body, you probably wouldn't even notice anything amiss, heh? And if that bat also exploded after knocking your teeth out and entered your skull, you WOULD know the difference, heh?
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.
Whoa! You not only crossed the line with this post, you pole-vaulted cleanly over it.
A candidly frightening look into the mind of RC.
What is really interesting is some people admitting they do not understand the inappropriateness of this kind of threat. It is reminiscent of Schneibster not understanding you don’t threaten to axe Foxx until the moderators removed it from the thread. It is becoming clearer to me how you would select people for disinformation.
One of the clear signs of disinformation is taking quotes out of context. Yours is a prime example.
I guess RC's joke is much worse than Mel's racist "Rag-head" comment.