QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 03:03 AM)
what I get from the little information in the article is that you need the physical evidence from the crime scene to correctly simulate the damage.
You're lying because that wasn't in the quote so how could that have been your intent? NOTING about not having enough evidence from the crime scene to draw a conclution is in your quote.
You're lying because that wasn't in the quote so how could that have been your intent? NOTING about not having enough evidence from the crime scene to draw a conclution is in your quote.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 11:03 PM)
What I get from the little information in the article is that you need the physical evidence from the crime scene to correctly simulate the damage. The engineer was obviously trying to cover for the fact his simulation did not match reality. The second paragraph is obviously just an opinion and shows serious problems with the model.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 9 2006, 11:17 PM)
Sold! If ever I get enough money to 'spare', I'll see what I can do recorder/service wise, hehehe.
And you're right-on about that 'least objectionable' "choice" to watch (reminds me of "least objectional' "politicians" to vote for, heh!). But in the case of TV, for myself at least, if there is nothing I ACTUALLY WANT to watch, I will sit and think/work or read/re-read/watch a good/favourite book/tape or listen to classical music or listen to the ABC Radio or go for a walk on the beach or ring my folks in Sydney or even log in at Physorg! Anything BUT settle for the least objectionable thing on! hehehe. But again, it'd be great to have that luxury of TV programs just waiting for you to 'catch up' with them....assuming I find things interesting enough often enough to warrant the expense/setup (I have reached that stage in my pretty 'busy' and 'original' life that I find 'little new under the sun' except for what I can imagine and what comes out of science & technology endeavours around the globe. Does anyone else feel that way?). Cheers!
RC.
.
RC,
I can assure you, I'll never watch all I record. The good news is that I can protect the shows that I know I'll want to watch eventually. Ones I want to add to my library I dump to DVD and the rest get automatically written over, oldest first.
I will tell you that there are PLENTY of very good shows on, but the MAJORITY of them are NOT on the big commercial stations, again, more than I will ever watch.
DVRs are coming down in price and DVD recorders allow similar capabilities for less up front cost, but then there is the media cost (I get 50 DVDs for ~$10 or less on sale).
Arthur
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 02:18 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 10 2006, 02:14 AM)
A good pictorial of the loss of registry between columns above and below the buckled region once the global collapse started. Assumptions made about the loads the building could handle are no longer valid near the collapse front once the columns are no longer connected to one another and vertical as they once were when the building was standing normally.
Does this model show the sequence where the upper sections exerted a force upwards while simultaneously travelling downwards? Or is that explanation pending?
Gordon.
Hi gordon. Can you rephrase that? hehehe.
RC.
.
I think he figured it out. Heh!
Does this model show the sequence where the upper sections exerted a force upwards while simultaneously travelling downwards? Or is that explanation pending?
Gordon.
Hi gordon. Can you rephrase that? hehehe.
RC.
.
I think he figured it out. Heh!
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 11:03 PM)
What I get from the little information in the article is that you need the physical evidence from the crime scene to correctly simulate the damage. The engineer was obviously trying to cover for the fact his simulation did not match reality. The second paragraph is obviously just an opinion and shows serious problems with the model.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 11:03 PM)
What I get from the little information in the article is that you need the physical evidence from the crime scene to correctly simulate the damage. The engineer was obviously trying to cover for the fact his simulation did not match reality. The second paragraph is obviously just an opinion and shows serious problems with the model.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 9 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 9 2006, 05:26 PM)
True gypsum will block the light, but it won't reflect it very well and we see a fairly brilliant shimmer in the vertical line of light in WTC 1. Concrete which has been formed with steel forms can be very smooth and reflective. I've blinded by it a few times.
I thought I posed this before but maybe not:
Anyway IF there was a concrete core it would have been painted or at least covered in gypsum board that would then be painted or covered in wall covering. BTW - If a concrete wall (or core as you suggest) is to be a finished product (i.e. not wrapped in gypsum board) it will be covered in a thin sheet of plaster much like gypsum board before it is painted. Therefore a gypsum board wall and a concrete wall will look virtually identical. The ONLY thing that would cause the supposed "brilliant shimmer" would be the sheen of the paint applied to it.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum is a matt finish and the concrete can actually be glossy.
I thought I posed this before but maybe not:
Anyway IF there was a concrete core it would have been painted or at least covered in gypsum board that would then be painted or covered in wall covering. BTW - If a concrete wall (or core as you suggest) is to be a finished product (i.e. not wrapped in gypsum board) it will be covered in a thin sheet of plaster much like gypsum board before it is painted. Therefore a gypsum board wall and a concrete wall will look virtually identical. The ONLY thing that would cause the supposed "brilliant shimmer" would be the sheen of the paint applied to it.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum is a matt finish and the concrete can actually be glossy.
let's assume that you somehow have an initiation causing a buckle in one face. To get that then there must be a rotation of the upper section. There must therefore be a centre of rotation Where is the centre of rotation? Without simultaneous buckling failure of the core columns or some other downward movement of the core that axis would have to lie through the core. This could allow the compressive force in the opposite wall columns to begin to move out of compresssion towards tension and it has been postulated that this could lead to forces which would cause tensile failure. However any sudden failure of the columns resistance, as this implies, would allow further angular momentum and the upper section would tend to continue rotating and pulling the collapse assymetrically off to the side of the buckle. In resisting the tensile forces the opposite wall columns would bend and tend to crush the floors or push them inwards. Any compressive failures of floors would tend to allow the angular momentum to continue.
This angular momentum would allow that the previously vertical force through the core can now be resolved into a vertical force and a horizontal reactive force. The vertical force is a maximum at the vertical position and decreases as the angle of rotation increases, while the horizontal reaction increases. The horizontal reaction will result in a bending of the core columns since they are cantilevered from the ground and this bending will itself allow the angular momentum.
Similarly the columns of the walls running perpendicular to the buckled face would suffer bending stresses in the weaker axis, although this would also find resistance in spandrel plate torsion.
This demonstrates that a buckling failure in one face without downward movement of the core would tend to allow the angular momentum to either find new equilibriums somehow or continue and tear itself down the side of the tower.
Gordon.
This angular momentum would allow that the previously vertical force through the core can now be resolved into a vertical force and a horizontal reactive force. The vertical force is a maximum at the vertical position and decreases as the angle of rotation increases, while the horizontal reaction increases. The horizontal reaction will result in a bending of the core columns since they are cantilevered from the ground and this bending will itself allow the angular momentum.
Similarly the columns of the walls running perpendicular to the buckled face would suffer bending stresses in the weaker axis, although this would also find resistance in spandrel plate torsion.
This demonstrates that a buckling failure in one face without downward movement of the core would tend to allow the angular momentum to either find new equilibriums somehow or continue and tear itself down the side of the tower.
Gordon.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 10 2006, 03:59 AM)
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 9 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 9 2006, 05:26 PM)
True gypsum will block the light, but it won't reflect it very well and we see a fairly brilliant shimmer in the vertical line of light in WTC 1. Concrete which has been formed with steel forms can be very smooth and reflective. I've blinded by it a few times.
I thought I posed this before but maybe not:
Anyway IF there was a concrete core it would have been painted or at least covered in gypsum board that would then be painted or covered in wall covering. BTW - If a concrete wall (or core as you suggest) is to be a finished product (i.e. not wrapped in gypsum board) it will be covered in a thin sheet of plaster much like gypsum board before it is painted. Therefore a gypsum board wall and a concrete wall will look virtually identical. The ONLY thing that would cause the supposed "brilliant shimmer" would be the sheen of the paint applied to it.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum is a matt finish and the concrete can actually be glossy.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum which had a matt finish would have been painted the same color as the glossy concrete making them look the same. Both would have also had the same dust on them. A mixture of concrete from the floors and gypsum.
[How many posts before he ignores this fact and repost the same dribble...]
I thought I posed this before but maybe not:
Anyway IF there was a concrete core it would have been painted or at least covered in gypsum board that would then be painted or covered in wall covering. BTW - If a concrete wall (or core as you suggest) is to be a finished product (i.e. not wrapped in gypsum board) it will be covered in a thin sheet of plaster much like gypsum board before it is painted. Therefore a gypsum board wall and a concrete wall will look virtually identical. The ONLY thing that would cause the supposed "brilliant shimmer" would be the sheen of the paint applied to it.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum is a matt finish and the concrete can actually be glossy.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum which had a matt finish would have been painted the same color as the glossy concrete making them look the same. Both would have also had the same dust on them. A mixture of concrete from the floors and gypsum.
[How many posts before he ignores this fact and repost the same dribble...]
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 04:05 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 10 2006, 03:59 AM)
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 9 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 9 2006, 05:26 PM)
True gypsum will block the light, but it won't reflect it very well and we see a fairly brilliant shimmer in the vertical line of light in WTC 1. Concrete which has been formed with steel forms can be very smooth and reflective. I've blinded by it a few times.
I thought I posed this before but maybe not:
Anyway IF there was a concrete core it would have been painted or at least covered in gypsum board that would then be painted or covered in wall covering. BTW - If a concrete wall (or core as you suggest) is to be a finished product (i.e. not wrapped in gypsum board) it will be covered in a thin sheet of plaster much like gypsum board before it is painted. Therefore a gypsum board wall and a concrete wall will look virtually identical. The ONLY thing that would cause the supposed "brilliant shimmer" would be the sheen of the paint applied to it.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum is a matt finish and the concrete can actually be glossy.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum which had a matt finish would have been painted the same color as the glossy concrete making them look the same. Both would have also had the same dust on them. A mixture of concrete from the floors and gypsum.
[How many posts before he ignores this fact and repost the same dribble...]
Yes, painting will make gypsum glossy.
However at the stage of construction we are looking at, I'd be surprised to find any paint anywhere except for primer on steel.
See 1976 King Kong, they just had the building painted then on the floors they were shooting on.
I thought I posed this before but maybe not:
Anyway IF there was a concrete core it would have been painted or at least covered in gypsum board that would then be painted or covered in wall covering. BTW - If a concrete wall (or core as you suggest) is to be a finished product (i.e. not wrapped in gypsum board) it will be covered in a thin sheet of plaster much like gypsum board before it is painted. Therefore a gypsum board wall and a concrete wall will look virtually identical. The ONLY thing that would cause the supposed "brilliant shimmer" would be the sheen of the paint applied to it.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum is a matt finish and the concrete can actually be glossy.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum which had a matt finish would have been painted the same color as the glossy concrete making them look the same. Both would have also had the same dust on them. A mixture of concrete from the floors and gypsum.
[How many posts before he ignores this fact and repost the same dribble...]
Yes, painting will make gypsum glossy.
However at the stage of construction we are looking at, I'd be surprised to find any paint anywhere except for primer on steel.
See 1976 King Kong, they just had the building painted then on the floors they were shooting on.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 9 2006, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 11:03 PM)
What I get from the little information in the article is that you need the physical evidence from the crime scene to correctly simulate the damage. The engineer was obviously trying to cover for the fact his simulation did not match reality. The second paragraph is obviously just an opinion and shows serious problems with the model.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 10 2006, 04:12 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 04:05 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 10 2006, 03:59 AM)
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 9 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 9 2006, 05:26 PM)
True gypsum will block the light, but it won't reflect it very well and we see a fairly brilliant shimmer in the vertical line of light in WTC 1. Concrete which has been formed with steel forms can be very smooth and reflective. I've blinded by it a few times.
I thought I posed this before but maybe not:
Anyway IF there was a concrete core it would have been painted or at least covered in gypsum board that would then be painted or covered in wall covering. BTW - If a concrete wall (or core as you suggest) is to be a finished product (i.e. not wrapped in gypsum board) it will be covered in a thin sheet of plaster much like gypsum board before it is painted. Therefore a gypsum board wall and a concrete wall will look virtually identical. The ONLY thing that would cause the supposed "brilliant shimmer" would be the sheen of the paint applied to it.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum is a matt finish and the concrete can actually be glossy.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum which had a matt finish would have been painted the same color as the glossy concrete making them look the same. Both would have also had the same dust on them. A mixture of concrete from the floors and gypsum.
[How many posts before he ignores this fact and repost the same dribble...]
Yes, painting will make gypsum glossy.
However at the stage of construction we are looking at, I'd be surprised to find any paint anywhere except for primer on steel.
See 1976 King Kong, they just had the building painted then on the floors they were shooting on.
However, thinking you can see paint from this photo make you insane.
I thought I posed this before but maybe not:
Anyway IF there was a concrete core it would have been painted or at least covered in gypsum board that would then be painted or covered in wall covering. BTW - If a concrete wall (or core as you suggest) is to be a finished product (i.e. not wrapped in gypsum board) it will be covered in a thin sheet of plaster much like gypsum board before it is painted. Therefore a gypsum board wall and a concrete wall will look virtually identical. The ONLY thing that would cause the supposed "brilliant shimmer" would be the sheen of the paint applied to it.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum is a matt finish and the concrete can actually be glossy.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum which had a matt finish would have been painted the same color as the glossy concrete making them look the same. Both would have also had the same dust on them. A mixture of concrete from the floors and gypsum.
[How many posts before he ignores this fact and repost the same dribble...]
Yes, painting will make gypsum glossy.
However at the stage of construction we are looking at, I'd be surprised to find any paint anywhere except for primer on steel.
See 1976 King Kong, they just had the building painted then on the floors they were shooting on.
However, thinking you can see paint from this photo make you insane.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 04:16 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 9 2006, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 11:03 PM)
What I get from the little information in the article is that you need the physical evidence from the crime scene to correctly simulate the damage. The engineer was obviously trying to cover for the fact his simulation did not match reality. The second paragraph is obviously just an opinion and shows serious problems with the model.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers like the bill for 9/11.
That makes absolutly no sense. Pay 3 billion now because you can get it back in 50 years...
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers like the bill for 9/11.
my CAR INSURANCE in ONTARIO CANADA went up over 30%, and when i phoned to complain, they cited 911 as being partially responsible.
unFRICKingbelievable.
fascist racket, insurance is.
i mean CAR insurance in another country goes up to cover the insurance companies losses. crooks left, right and centre.
hey, common sense. ever heard of 'kickbacks', 'payola' and 'threats'?
just curious.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers like the bill for 9/11.
That makes absolutly no sense. Pay 3 billion now because you can get it back in 50 years...
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 04:16 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 9 2006, 07:48 PM)
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers like the bill for 9/11.
my CAR INSURANCE in ONTARIO CANADA went up over 30%, and when i phoned to complain, they cited 911 as being partially responsible.
unFRICKingbelievable.
fascist racket, insurance is.
i mean CAR insurance in another country goes up to cover the insurance companies losses. crooks left, right and centre.
hey, common sense. ever heard of 'kickbacks', 'payola' and 'threats'?
just curious.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 10 2006, 04:03 AM)
let's assume that you somehow have an initiation causing a buckle in one face. To get that then there must be a rotation of the upper section. There must therefore be a centre of rotation Where is the centre of rotation? Without simultaneous buckling failure of the core columns or some other downward movement of the core that axis would have to lie through the core. This could allow the compressive force in the opposite wall columns to begin to move out of compresssion towards tension and it has been postulated that this could lead to forces which would cause tensile failure. However any sudden failure of the columns resistance, as this implies, would allow further angular momentum and the upper section would tend to continue rotating and pulling the collapse assymetrically off to the side of the buckle. In resisting the tensile forces the opposite wall columns would bend and tend to crush the floors or push them inwards. Any compressive failures of floors would tend to allow the angular momentum to continue.
This angular momentum would allow that the previously vertical force through the core can now be resolved into a vertical force and a horizontal reactive force. The vertical force is a maximum at the vertical position and decreases as the angle of rotation increases, while the horizontal reaction increases. The horizontal reaction will result in a bending of the core columns since they are cantilevered from the ground and this bending will itself allow the angular momentum.
Similarly the columns of the walls running perpendicular to the buckled face would suffer bending stresses in the weaker axis, although this would also find resistance in spandrel plate torsion.
This demonstrates that a buckling failure in one face without downward movement of the core would tend to allow the angular momentum to either find new equilibriums somehow or continue and tear itself down the side of the tower.
Gordon.
Hi gordon. You said it yourself. Rotation. The tension from the undamaged sides and core columns wuold have restrained actual 'tanslation/toppling'.
And that whole top rotating about the core-top would have stressed the floor-edge connections up there at least as much as the fire/expansion/contraction/sagging did on the impact/fire floors. So by the time that 'rotation' was too far around/down on one side, the floors connectors would have been failing and the side that was pressing INWARDS on the core at the lower levels could only do MORE damage via what was left of the floor structures that could be 'compressed' against the core on that side.
Meanwhile, the rotation was only allowed to continue as a 'pushed' event from the undamaged side because that side was still connected to the top structure and could not allow the top to 'recover' even if it wanted to, because THEN it would be 'crushing' those previously undamaged columns.
Once the rotation sheared/buckled enough core/perimeter columns, then the whole top structure was 'dead weight and still rotating on the upper core. By that time ALL the weight/stress transferred to the core via the hat truss would have 'levered' the damaged core columns at the fire levels and THEN the core gave way as a consequence of the TOP having First created the conditions by itself essentially only being supported by the damaged and failing core structure at the fire levels.
Remember that by that time the previously undamaged columns on the side(s), which were helping to 'restrain' (in tension) the rotation of the top to an IN AND DOWN direction on the impacted side, will now (because of the tops sagging onto all sides due to continued buckling/distorting of core columns) be experiencing a 'compression/deflection' force from the sinking top structure.
Hence the observed down and in crushing on all sides once the damaged core could not take the full weight of the ALL-ROUND-FAILED top structure (which by now would be disconnecting from its floor, hat-truss and uppercore connections because of both rotation and vertical shearing.
Does that 'nutshell' observation sound OK for you gordon?
RC.
.
This angular momentum would allow that the previously vertical force through the core can now be resolved into a vertical force and a horizontal reactive force. The vertical force is a maximum at the vertical position and decreases as the angle of rotation increases, while the horizontal reaction increases. The horizontal reaction will result in a bending of the core columns since they are cantilevered from the ground and this bending will itself allow the angular momentum.
Similarly the columns of the walls running perpendicular to the buckled face would suffer bending stresses in the weaker axis, although this would also find resistance in spandrel plate torsion.
This demonstrates that a buckling failure in one face without downward movement of the core would tend to allow the angular momentum to either find new equilibriums somehow or continue and tear itself down the side of the tower.
Gordon.
Hi gordon. You said it yourself. Rotation. The tension from the undamaged sides and core columns wuold have restrained actual 'tanslation/toppling'.
And that whole top rotating about the core-top would have stressed the floor-edge connections up there at least as much as the fire/expansion/contraction/sagging did on the impact/fire floors. So by the time that 'rotation' was too far around/down on one side, the floors connectors would have been failing and the side that was pressing INWARDS on the core at the lower levels could only do MORE damage via what was left of the floor structures that could be 'compressed' against the core on that side.
Meanwhile, the rotation was only allowed to continue as a 'pushed' event from the undamaged side because that side was still connected to the top structure and could not allow the top to 'recover' even if it wanted to, because THEN it would be 'crushing' those previously undamaged columns.
Once the rotation sheared/buckled enough core/perimeter columns, then the whole top structure was 'dead weight and still rotating on the upper core. By that time ALL the weight/stress transferred to the core via the hat truss would have 'levered' the damaged core columns at the fire levels and THEN the core gave way as a consequence of the TOP having First created the conditions by itself essentially only being supported by the damaged and failing core structure at the fire levels.
Remember that by that time the previously undamaged columns on the side(s), which were helping to 'restrain' (in tension) the rotation of the top to an IN AND DOWN direction on the impacted side, will now (because of the tops sagging onto all sides due to continued buckling/distorting of core columns) be experiencing a 'compression/deflection' force from the sinking top structure.
Hence the observed down and in crushing on all sides once the damaged core could not take the full weight of the ALL-ROUND-FAILED top structure (which by now would be disconnecting from its floor, hat-truss and uppercore connections because of both rotation and vertical shearing.
Does that 'nutshell' observation sound OK for you gordon?
RC.
.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 12:59 AM)
QUOTE (Mr ObFoxxcator+Mar 10 2006, 12:56 AM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 10 2006, 12:35 AM)
A good pictorial of the loss of registry between columns above and below the buckled region once the global collapse started. Assumptions made about the loads the building could handle are no longer valid near the collapse front once the columns are no longer connected to one another and vertical as they once were when the building was standing normally.
Great Image shagster...
Could explosives do the same thing?
Could an alien space ship do the same thing, Mr ObFoxxcator?
Are you now suggesting aliens did it instead of Arabs?
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers like the bill for 9/11.
my CAR INSURANCE in ONTARIO CANADA went up over 30%, and when i phoned to complain, they cited 911 as being partially responsible.
unFRICKingbelievable.
fascist racket, insurance is.
i mean CAR insurance in another country goes up to cover the insurance companies losses. crooks left, right and centre.
hey, common sense. ever heard of 'kickbacks', 'payola' and 'threats'?
just curious.
Don't blame your bad driving on controlled demolition. Heh!
The point I'm making is the insurance companies love to raise insurance rates but hate to pay it out.
As for 'kickbacks', 'payola' and 'threats', it all comes down to evidence, You have any? And I don't mean your logical fallacies.
Great Image shagster...
Could explosives do the same thing?
Could an alien space ship do the same thing, Mr ObFoxxcator?
Are you now suggesting aliens did it instead of Arabs?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 04:24 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 04:16 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 9 2006, 07:48 PM)
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers like the bill for 9/11.
my CAR INSURANCE in ONTARIO CANADA went up over 30%, and when i phoned to complain, they cited 911 as being partially responsible.
unFRICKingbelievable.
fascist racket, insurance is.
i mean CAR insurance in another country goes up to cover the insurance companies losses. crooks left, right and centre.
hey, common sense. ever heard of 'kickbacks', 'payola' and 'threats'?
just curious.
Don't blame your bad driving on controlled demolition. Heh!
The point I'm making is the insurance companies love to raise insurance rates but hate to pay it out.
As for 'kickbacks', 'payola' and 'threats', it all comes down to evidence, You have any? And I don't mean your logical fallacies.
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 10 2006, 04:29 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 12:59 AM)
QUOTE (Mr ObFoxxcator+Mar 10 2006, 12:56 AM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 10 2006, 12:35 AM)
A good pictorial of the loss of registry between columns above and below the buckled region once the global collapse started. Assumptions made about the loads the building could handle are no longer valid near the collapse front once the columns are no longer connected to one another and vertical as they once were when the building was standing normally.
Great Image shagster...
Could explosives do the same thing?
Could an alien space ship do the same thing, Mr ObFoxxcator?
Are you now suggesting aliens did it instead of Arabs?
I'm saying I have as much evidence aliens caused the collapse as you have for explosives.
Great Image shagster...
Could explosives do the same thing?
Could an alien space ship do the same thing, Mr ObFoxxcator?
Are you now suggesting aliens did it instead of Arabs?
I'm saying I have as much evidence aliens caused the collapse as you have for explosives.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 04:16 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 9 2006, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 11:03 PM)
What I get from the little information in the article is that you need the physical evidence from the crime scene to correctly simulate the damage. The engineer was obviously trying to cover for the fact his simulation did not match reality. The second paragraph is obviously just an opinion and shows serious problems with the model.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
Can you just imagine the disastrous compensation bill and public relations/reputation damage which would have ensued for that insurance company if they had gone AGAINST THAT FIRE CHIEF/COMMANDER'S recommendations and insisted they fight that 'futile battle' and they lost even MORE firefighters when it DID collapse as the COMMANDER judged it would on available information from surveys/indications etc?
Besides, I think under LAW/regulations they cannot go against the decisions of the relevant competent official authority on the spot in such matters, even if they wanted to. That would also go for the owners of a building so designated as 'futile' and 'too dangerous' to fight. It would be completely out of their hands then.
RC.
.
hey, common sense. ever heard of 'kickbacks', 'payola' and 'threats'?
just curious.
Don't blame your bad driving on controlled demolition. Heh!
The point I'm making is the insurance companies love to raise insurance rates but hate to pay it out.
As for 'kickbacks', 'payola' and 'threats', it all comes down to evidence, You have any? And I don't mean your logical fallacies.
of course i have proof.
that's why all the bad guys are in jail, now. the troops are home. there's a big parade, too.
and, now, you're defending insurance companies' 'right to gouge'. you said you're a staunch 'liberal', right. (sometimes, you put the little winking icon next to the word. i'm a liberal, wink, wink.)
p.s. the hike had nothing to do with my driving record, which is clean as a whistle(a new whistle, not one all gummed up with spit). the agent specifically told me that the insurance companies raised rates to cover their losses on 911( my sept 2002 renewal). that accounted for about HALF of the rate increase, and the rest was just literally highway robbery.
insurance companies keep posting huge profits, but claim they have to raise rates because of losses. sounds a lot like floor pans that can resist a downward pulse enough to grind everything on the floor to a fine dust, while not arresting the 'plunge of the plunger', and THEN give out and add there huge crushing mass to the avalanche, an a fraction of a second. or floor pans that disconnect from perimeter columns, and THEN pull them in.
typical big brother doublethink(and nonthink).
here, i'll throw you a bone.....
"some stuff that i try and do, i don't do well." okay, RUN WITH IT! tear me a new one. both barrels. no mercy.
'ive made mistakes in the past, and will in the future'. there. i'm completely discredited.
wanna know what type of person is the most insulting? a really insecure person.
don't worry, man. not EVERYONE finds you offensive and hateful.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
Can you just imagine the disastrous compensation bill and public relations/reputation damage which would have ensued for that insurance company if they had gone AGAINST THAT FIRE CHIEF/COMMANDER'S recommendations and insisted they fight that 'futile battle' and they lost even MORE firefighters when it DID collapse as the COMMANDER judged it would on available information from surveys/indications etc?
Besides, I think under LAW/regulations they cannot go against the decisions of the relevant competent official authority on the spot in such matters, even if they wanted to. That would also go for the owners of a building so designated as 'futile' and 'too dangerous' to fight. It would be completely out of their hands then.
RC.
.
Interesting forum summary:
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 04:30 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 04:24 AM)
hey, common sense. ever heard of 'kickbacks', 'payola' and 'threats'?
just curious.
Don't blame your bad driving on controlled demolition. Heh!
The point I'm making is the insurance companies love to raise insurance rates but hate to pay it out.
As for 'kickbacks', 'payola' and 'threats', it all comes down to evidence, You have any? And I don't mean your logical fallacies.
of course i have proof.
that's why all the bad guys are in jail, now. the troops are home. there's a big parade, too.
and, now, you're defending insurance companies' 'right to gouge'. you said you're a staunch 'liberal', right. (sometimes, you put the little winking icon next to the word. i'm a liberal, wink, wink.)
p.s. the hike had nothing to do with my driving record, which is clean as a whistle(a new whistle, not one all gummed up with spit). the agent specifically told me that the insurance companies raised rates to cover their losses on 911( my sept 2002 renewal). that accounted for about HALF of the rate increase, and the rest was just literally highway robbery.
insurance companies keep posting huge profits, but claim they have to raise rates because of losses. sounds a lot like floor pans that can resist a downward pulse enough to grind everything on the floor to a fine dust, while not arresting the 'plunge of the plunger', and THEN give out and add there huge crushing mass to the avalanche, an a fraction of a second. or floor pans that disconnect from perimeter columns, and THEN pull them in.
typical big brother doublethink(and nonthink).
here, i'll throw you a bone.....
"some stuff that i try and do, i don't do well." okay, RUN WITH IT! tear me a new one. both barrels. no mercy.
'ive made mistakes in the past, and will in the future'. there. i'm completely discredited.
wanna know what type of person is the most insulting? a really insecure person.
don't worry, man. not EVERYONE finds you offensive and hateful.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 10 2006, 04:29 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 12:59 AM)
QUOTE (Mr ObFoxxcator+Mar 10 2006, 12:56 AM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 10 2006, 12:35 AM)
A good pictorial of the loss of registry between columns above and below the buckled region once the global collapse started. Assumptions made about the loads the building could handle are no longer valid near the collapse front once the columns are no longer connected to one another and vertical as they once were when the building was standing normally.
Great Image shagster...
Could explosives do the same thing?
Could an alien space ship do the same thing, Mr ObFoxxcator?
Are you now suggesting aliens did it instead of Arabs?
I'm saying I have as much evidence aliens caused the collapse as you have for explosives.
I agree: you have as much evidence that illegal aliens (Arabs) did it as I have for explosives ('cept there's tonnes more evidence it was explosives).
hehehe (RC-esque schoolgirl giggle).
Great Image shagster...
Could explosives do the same thing?
Could an alien space ship do the same thing, Mr ObFoxxcator?
Are you now suggesting aliens did it instead of Arabs?
I'm saying I have as much evidence aliens caused the collapse as you have for explosives.
I agree: you have as much evidence that illegal aliens (Arabs) did it as I have for explosives ('cept there's tonnes more evidence it was explosives).
hehehe (RC-esque schoolgirl giggle).
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 9 2006, 08:46 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 04:16 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 9 2006, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 11:03 PM)
What I get from the little information in the article is that you need the physical evidence from the crime scene to correctly simulate the damage. The engineer was obviously trying to cover for the fact his simulation did not match reality. The second paragraph is obviously just an opinion and shows serious problems with the model.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
Can you just imagine the disastrous compensation bill and public relations/reputation damage which would have ensued for that insurance company if they had gone AGAINST THAT FIRE CHIEF/COMMANDER'S recommendations and insisted they fight that 'futile battle' and they lost even MORE firefighters when it DID collapse as the COMMANDER judged it would on available information from surveys/indications etc?
Besides, I think under LAW/regulations they cannot go against the decisions of the relevant competent official authority on the spot in such matters, even if they wanted to. That would also go for the owners of a building so designated as 'futile' and 'too dangerous' to fight. It would be completely out of their hands then.
RC.
.
Look at some pictures of firemen fighting high rise fires. You do not need to go into the building to fight the fire. The building collapsed almost straight down so unless they were hit buy the explosives shattering the windows there was nothing to worry about.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
I sincerely doubt that the insurance companies were involved at all.
I suspect this is just more BS you made up.
Got ANY PROOF at all that the insurance companies were involved in the decision to "Pull it"?
Arthur
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
Can you just imagine the disastrous compensation bill and public relations/reputation damage which would have ensued for that insurance company if they had gone AGAINST THAT FIRE CHIEF/COMMANDER'S recommendations and insisted they fight that 'futile battle' and they lost even MORE firefighters when it DID collapse as the COMMANDER judged it would on available information from surveys/indications etc?
Besides, I think under LAW/regulations they cannot go against the decisions of the relevant competent official authority on the spot in such matters, even if they wanted to. That would also go for the owners of a building so designated as 'futile' and 'too dangerous' to fight. It would be completely out of their hands then.
RC.
.
Look at some pictures of firemen fighting high rise fires. You do not need to go into the building to fight the fire. The building collapsed almost straight down so unless they were hit buy the explosives shattering the windows there was nothing to worry about.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 12:16 AM)
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
I sincerely doubt that the insurance companies were involved at all.
I suspect this is just more BS you made up.
Got ANY PROOF at all that the insurance companies were involved in the decision to "Pull it"?
Arthur
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 10 2006, 04:58 AM)
Interesting forum summary:
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 01:04 AM)
Look at some pictures of firemen fighting high rise fires. You do not need to go into the building to fight the fire. The building collapsed almost straight down so unless they were hit buy the explosives shattering the windows there was nothing to worry about.
More BS made up.
While there may be SOME opportunity for STAND OFF efforts, to fight almost any fire you have to get up close and personal
Read about the First Interstate fire in LA, 30 companies responded and almost all were INSIDE the building the whole time.
The WTC 7 had a floor area EQUAL to the WTC towers, a full ACRE. You can't fight a fire like that from the OUTSIDE.
Arthur
More BS made up.
While there may be SOME opportunity for STAND OFF efforts, to fight almost any fire you have to get up close and personal
Read about the First Interstate fire in LA, 30 companies responded and almost all were INSIDE the building the whole time.
The WTC 7 had a floor area EQUAL to the WTC towers, a full ACRE. You can't fight a fire like that from the OUTSIDE.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 05:04 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 9 2006, 08:46 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 04:16 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 9 2006, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 11:03 PM)
What I get from the little information in the article is that you need the physical evidence from the crime scene to correctly simulate the damage. The engineer was obviously trying to cover for the fact his simulation did not match reality. The second paragraph is obviously just an opinion and shows serious problems with the model.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
Can you just imagine the disastrous compensation bill and public relations/reputation damage which would have ensued for that insurance company if they had gone AGAINST THAT FIRE CHIEF/COMMANDER'S recommendations and insisted they fight that 'futile battle' and they lost even MORE firefighters when it DID collapse as the COMMANDER judged it would on available information from surveys/indications etc?
Besides, I think under LAW/regulations they cannot go against the decisions of the relevant competent official authority on the spot in such matters, even if they wanted to. That would also go for the owners of a building so designated as 'futile' and 'too dangerous' to fight. It would be completely out of their hands then.
RC.
.
Look at some pictures of firemen fighting high rise fires. You do not need to go into the building to fight the fire. The building collapsed almost straight down so unless they were hit buy the explosives shattering the windows there was nothing to worry about.
Hi reasonwhy. You are really into this 'ignoring the bleedin bloody obvious' if it's 'expedient', arent you. You taking lessons from Foxx?
Did adoucette and others already point out that THESE firefighters had just lost much of their men and equipment in the tower collapses. They are amidst hot fires and unsafe conditions from practically every side. WTC7 is making all sorts of funny creaks and groans that don't bode well in the experienced judgement of the fighters on the spot. There are no people to save from a burning building that is not expected to survive the day. What OTHER situation are you comparing all THAT with? And what's with the"they had nothing to worry about because the building fell straight down"?....how were they to know this would happen if they were going to try to save the building?....and why do you think they WERE afraid of losing more lives when it was surely going to collapse and THEY PULLED EVERYONE BACK TO A SAFE DISTANCE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO DO WHEN IT DID FINALLY COLLAPSE?...obvious, heh?
RC.
.
What NONE of the engineering firms or lawyers say is the story that Gordon and Foxx and others are postulating, which is that once the LOCAL collapse ensued, that it wouldn't, in fact, couldn't have led to a GLOBAL collapse without additional energies.
Why do you think that these top notch firms missed the fact that the failure shouldn't have progressed????
Arthur
It states the reason in the article:
"The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them:"
Yeah, he didn't win as much as two attacks. That was the lawsuit. He was paid for one. If they could have proven controlled demolition they wouldn't have had to pay him a dime.
Little bits of information you like to leave out. VERY VERY DISHONEST.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
Can you just imagine the disastrous compensation bill and public relations/reputation damage which would have ensued for that insurance company if they had gone AGAINST THAT FIRE CHIEF/COMMANDER'S recommendations and insisted they fight that 'futile battle' and they lost even MORE firefighters when it DID collapse as the COMMANDER judged it would on available information from surveys/indications etc?
Besides, I think under LAW/regulations they cannot go against the decisions of the relevant competent official authority on the spot in such matters, even if they wanted to. That would also go for the owners of a building so designated as 'futile' and 'too dangerous' to fight. It would be completely out of their hands then.
RC.
.
Look at some pictures of firemen fighting high rise fires. You do not need to go into the building to fight the fire. The building collapsed almost straight down so unless they were hit buy the explosives shattering the windows there was nothing to worry about.
Hi reasonwhy. You are really into this 'ignoring the bleedin bloody obvious' if it's 'expedient', arent you. You taking lessons from Foxx?
Did adoucette and others already point out that THESE firefighters had just lost much of their men and equipment in the tower collapses. They are amidst hot fires and unsafe conditions from practically every side. WTC7 is making all sorts of funny creaks and groans that don't bode well in the experienced judgement of the fighters on the spot. There are no people to save from a burning building that is not expected to survive the day. What OTHER situation are you comparing all THAT with? And what's with the"they had nothing to worry about because the building fell straight down"?....how were they to know this would happen if they were going to try to save the building?....and why do you think they WERE afraid of losing more lives when it was surely going to collapse and THEY PULLED EVERYONE BACK TO A SAFE DISTANCE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO DO WHEN IT DID FINALLY COLLAPSE?...obvious, heh?
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 01:04 AM)
Look at some pictures of firemen fighting high rise fires. You do not need to go into the building to fight the fire. The building collapsed almost straight down so unless they were hit buy the explosives shattering the windows there was nothing to worry about.
More BS made up.
While there may be SOME opportunity for STAND OFF efforts, to fight almost any fire you have to get up close and personal
Read about the First Interstate fire in LA, 30 companies responded and almost all were INSIDE the building the whole time.
The WTC 7 had a floor area EQUAL to the WTC towers, a full ACRE. You can't fight a fire like that from the OUTSIDE.
Arthur
I thought the fires were on the first nine stories. This truck doesn’t appear to even need firefighters near the building.
More BS made up.
While there may be SOME opportunity for STAND OFF efforts, to fight almost any fire you have to get up close and personal
Read about the First Interstate fire in LA, 30 companies responded and almost all were INSIDE the building the whole time.
The WTC 7 had a floor area EQUAL to the WTC towers, a full ACRE. You can't fight a fire like that from the OUTSIDE.
Arthur
I thought the fires were on the first nine stories. This truck doesn’t appear to even need firefighters near the building.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 01:22 AM)
I thought the fires were on the first nine stories.
Nope, wrong again.
But that's beside the point, you can't fight a fire in a building with floor areas equal to 40,000 sq ft from just the outside and even if you do, and you were as close as that truck, you are by no stretch of the imagination safe if that building collapses.
While we know how it DID fall, we couldn't know how it WOULD fall.
Arthur
Nope, wrong again.
But that's beside the point, you can't fight a fire in a building with floor areas equal to 40,000 sq ft from just the outside and even if you do, and you were as close as that truck, you are by no stretch of the imagination safe if that building collapses.
While we know how it DID fall, we couldn't know how it WOULD fall.
Arthur
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 01:10 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 10 2006, 04:58 AM)
Interesting forum summary:
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Who's got the AGENDA is obvious,
I mean which side of the debate posts political BS instead of Physics????
When WE go off topic its about DVRs
Arthur
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Who's got the AGENDA is obvious,
I mean which side of the debate posts political BS instead of Physics????
When WE go off topic its about DVRs
Arthur
Arthur exposes himself as a shill by his abundant use of emoticons.
It's all too obvious
It's all too obvious
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 01:20 AM)
reasonwhy. You are really into this 'ignoring the bleedin bloody obvious' if it's 'expedient', arent you. You taking lessons from Foxx?
Reasonwhy has gone into meltdown.
Every post is getting more and more bizzare.
Its clear now that he's gone through all his "talking points" and is just making stuff up. Either that or getting it off of VERY POORLY researched CT sites.
Sad, and as you say, as Pathetic as Foxx.
Arthur
Reasonwhy has gone into meltdown.
Every post is getting more and more bizzare.
Its clear now that he's gone through all his "talking points" and is just making stuff up. Either that or getting it off of VERY POORLY researched CT sites.
Sad, and as you say, as Pathetic as Foxx.
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 04:20 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 10 2006, 04:12 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 04:05 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 10 2006, 03:59 AM)
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 9 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 9 2006, 05:26 PM)
True gypsum will block the light, but it won't reflect it very well and we see a fairly brilliant shimmer in the vertical line of light in WTC 1. Concrete which has been formed with steel forms can be very smooth and reflective. I've blinded by it a few times.
I thought I posed this before but maybe not:
Anyway IF there was a concrete core it would have been painted or at least covered in gypsum board that would then be painted or covered in wall covering. BTW - If a concrete wall (or core as you suggest) is to be a finished product (i.e. not wrapped in gypsum board) it will be covered in a thin sheet of plaster much like gypsum board before it is painted. Therefore a gypsum board wall and a concrete wall will look virtually identical. The ONLY thing that would cause the supposed "brilliant shimmer" would be the sheen of the paint applied to it.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum is a matt finish and the concrete can actually be glossy.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum which had a matt finish would have been painted the same color as the glossy concrete making them look the same. Both would have also had the same dust on them. A mixture of concrete from the floors and gypsum.
[How many posts before he ignores this fact and repost the same dribble...]
Yes, painting will make gypsum glossy.
However at the stage of construction we are looking at, I'd be surprised to find any paint anywhere except for primer on steel.
See 1976 King Kong, they just had the building painted then on the floors they were shooting on.
However, thinking you can see paint from this photo make you insane.
I do believe you have just misrepresented my position. Something that is unlikely because my position has been simply defined.
Why are you here?
I thought I posed this before but maybe not:
Anyway IF there was a concrete core it would have been painted or at least covered in gypsum board that would then be painted or covered in wall covering. BTW - If a concrete wall (or core as you suggest) is to be a finished product (i.e. not wrapped in gypsum board) it will be covered in a thin sheet of plaster much like gypsum board before it is painted. Therefore a gypsum board wall and a concrete wall will look virtually identical. The ONLY thing that would cause the supposed "brilliant shimmer" would be the sheen of the paint applied to it.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum is a matt finish and the concrete can actually be glossy.
Absolutely right on!!
Except the fact that the gypsum which had a matt finish would have been painted the same color as the glossy concrete making them look the same. Both would have also had the same dust on them. A mixture of concrete from the floors and gypsum.
[How many posts before he ignores this fact and repost the same dribble...]
Yes, painting will make gypsum glossy.
However at the stage of construction we are looking at, I'd be surprised to find any paint anywhere except for primer on steel.
See 1976 King Kong, they just had the building painted then on the floors they were shooting on.
However, thinking you can see paint from this photo make you insane.
I do believe you have just misrepresented my position. Something that is unlikely because my position has been simply defined.
Why are you here?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 05:43 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 01:10 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 10 2006, 04:58 AM)
Interesting forum summary:
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Who's got the AGENDA is obvious,
I mean which side of the debate posts political BS instead of Physics????
When WE go off topic its about DVRs
Arthur
Hehehe (not a schoolgirlish giggle like Mel's "heeeheeeheee"....but a fullthroated manly "hehehe", heh Mel? All in good fun tit for tat? OK, mate? hehehe). Cheers all, I'm going for my afternoon 'constitutional' along the beach. BTW I just saw through my window a great display by the local pod of dolphins 'arcing' over the waves...great stuff and very uplifting to the mood! Makes you realize that MAN isn't the be all and end all in the universal scheme of things.
Later!
RC.
.
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Who's got the AGENDA is obvious,
I mean which side of the debate posts political BS instead of Physics????
When WE go off topic its about DVRs
Arthur
Hehehe (not a schoolgirlish giggle like Mel's "heeeheeeheee"....but a fullthroated manly "hehehe", heh Mel? All in good fun tit for tat? OK, mate? hehehe). Cheers all, I'm going for my afternoon 'constitutional' along the beach. BTW I just saw through my window a great display by the local pod of dolphins 'arcing' over the waves...great stuff and very uplifting to the mood! Makes you realize that MAN isn't the be all and end all in the universal scheme of things.
Later!
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 09:34 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 01:22 AM)
I thought the fires were on the first nine stories.
Nope, wrong again.
But that's beside the point, you can't fight a fire in a building with floor areas equal to 40,000 sq ft from just the outside and even if you do, and you were as close as that truck, you are by no stretch of the imagination safe if that building collapses.
While we know how it DID fall, we couldn't know how it WOULD fall.
Arthur
I stand corrected. I was talking about the floors responsible for total progressive collapse. It might not have put the fires out however it could have made them less intense if they really did exhist. I don’t believe they ever expect to totally put the fire out from the outside.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
I sincerely doubt that the insurance companies were involved at all.
I suspect this is just more BS you made up.
Got ANY PROOF at all that the insurance companies were involved in the decision to "Pull it"?
Arthur
Got any proof I said the insurance companies were involved in the decision to”pull it”?
Your involved in banking and must be aware it is the reinsurers that take the loss.
Nope, wrong again.
But that's beside the point, you can't fight a fire in a building with floor areas equal to 40,000 sq ft from just the outside and even if you do, and you were as close as that truck, you are by no stretch of the imagination safe if that building collapses.
While we know how it DID fall, we couldn't know how it WOULD fall.
Arthur
I stand corrected. I was talking about the floors responsible for total progressive collapse. It might not have put the fires out however it could have made them less intense if they really did exhist. I don’t believe they ever expect to totally put the fire out from the outside.
QUOTE (sock puppet+Mar 10 2006, 01:49 AM)
Arthur exposes himself as a shill by his abundant use of emoticons.
It's all too obvious
I can't help it if so much of the CT BS is flat FUNNY.
I read em and break out laughing.
Only CTers continually act like STUPIDITY is a virtue.
Would you prefer it if I stick to the old fashion:
ROTFLMAO.
Nah.
Forget it, too hard to type
Arthur
It's all too obvious
I can't help it if so much of the CT BS is flat FUNNY.
I read em and break out laughing.
Only CTers continually act like STUPIDITY is a virtue.
Would you prefer it if I stick to the old fashion:
ROTFLMAO.
Nah.
Forget it, too hard to type
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 01:53 AM)
I stand corrected. I was talking about the floors responsible for total progressive collapse. It might not have put the fires out however it could have made them less intense if they really did exhist. I don’t believe they ever expect to totally put the fire out from the outside.
Ok, you're the fire chief.
The building has UNKNOWN DAMAGE.
The building is creaking and out of plumb.
Fires are burning on multiple floors (9 or more)
You've just lost tons of equipment (hard to replace specialized equipment)
You've just lost hundreds of men that day (harder to replace)
To fight the fire at First Interstate took 30 Companies and was on fewer floors
You know that there are NO PEOPLE left in the building
Given all that, would YOU risk several hunred men to save a hunk of already severely damaged steel and concrete, realizing that by the time you get the fires out it will probably be a write off anyway?
Arthur
Ok, you're the fire chief.
The building has UNKNOWN DAMAGE.
The building is creaking and out of plumb.
Fires are burning on multiple floors (9 or more)
You've just lost tons of equipment (hard to replace specialized equipment)
You've just lost hundreds of men that day (harder to replace)
To fight the fire at First Interstate took 30 Companies and was on fewer floors
You know that there are NO PEOPLE left in the building
Given all that, would YOU risk several hunred men to save a hunk of already severely damaged steel and concrete, realizing that by the time you get the fires out it will probably be a write off anyway?
Arthur
Buwahahahahah!!
Emoticon use is taught in Shilling for the Illuminati 101, right after they review trig identities!!
Emoticon use is taught in Shilling for the Illuminati 101, right after they review trig identities!!
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 09:06 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 12:16 AM)
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
I sincerely doubt that the insurance companies were involved at all.
I suspect this is just more BS you made up.
Got ANY PROOF at all that the insurance companies were involved in the decision to "Pull it"?
Arthur
Got any proof I said the insurance companies were involved in the decision to”pull it”?
Your involved in banking and must be aware it is the reinsurers that take the loss.
who thinks to spend a million dollars making a blast proof 'emergency management' bomb shelter up in the sky? who would think that there was such a pressing need for any kind of blast proof shelter in wtc7, and why would they not put it somewhere SAFE, like underground? what are the chances of picking the exact spot that it would actually 'come in handy'?
because, .....ummmm, .....wait for it.......
here comes the OTHER 'CLOWN CAR', honk, honk, whacka whacka A-WOOOOO-GA!
here's more comedy....to sever and pretext
because, .....ummmm, .....wait for it.......
here comes the OTHER 'CLOWN CAR', honk, honk, whacka whacka A-WOOOOO-GA!
here's more comedy....to sever and pretext
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 05:10 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 10 2006, 04:58 AM)
Interesting forum summary:
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
The numbers speak for themselves.
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
I sincerely doubt that the insurance companies were involved at all.
I suspect this is just more BS you made up.
Got ANY PROOF at all that the insurance companies were involved in the decision to "Pull it"?
Arthur
Got any proof I said the insurance companies were involved in the decision to”pull it”?
Splitting hairs are we?
How can one "not object" if one isn't involved in the decision????
Arthur
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
The numbers speak for themselves.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 02:05 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 09:06 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 12:16 AM)
I also left out the fact the insurance companies did not object to not fighting the fires in WTC7 for some reason. Maybe because they passed the loss on to the American consumers same as the bill for 9/11.
I sincerely doubt that the insurance companies were involved at all.
I suspect this is just more BS you made up.
Got ANY PROOF at all that the insurance companies were involved in the decision to "Pull it"?
Arthur
Got any proof I said the insurance companies were involved in the decision to”pull it”?
Splitting hairs are we?
How can one "not object" if one isn't involved in the decision????
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 05:43 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 01:10 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 10 2006, 04:58 AM)
Interesting forum summary:
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Who's got the AGENDA is obvious,
I mean which side of the debate posts political BS instead of Physics????
When WE go off topic its about DVRs
Arthur
Mel,
Great post. Revealing in more than one way. I thought it was me, like I couldn't figure out which side of the fence some posters are on because I don't give a crap about fires and planes or lies or the 5 sided thing, so I don't read posts with those subjects much.
No, it's not just me, you're having a hard time with it too. But you've got the guts to try and judge it with a post. If you can do that I can comment on it. THX!
Your choice of labels is interesting too. You've got the obvious CS in that spot at the top. right where I'd put him. But RealityCheck, Adoucette, Shagster, ScottS seemed to post some sincere stuff that supports demolition, others too. Adoucette and newton have even recognized important facts of the structure.
I'd note that CS's tone has gotten shrill and almost desparate as our informed, experienced, rational agreement repeatedly, comprhensively underlined the fact that what we saw can only be a demolition.
I see an issue where posters confirm a piece of logic but then do not support it's use any further, as if they want the truth and will indirectly work for it with others but will not work to consolodate it for meaningful usage.
I'm going to re-label and re-arrange the posters and their positions in a less contentious way.
DECIEVED & SEEKING COMFORT
Schneibster (CS) - 31
Adoucette - 15
newton - 5
DECIEVED & SEEKING TRUTH
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
RealityCheck - 16
ScottS. - 3
Shagster - 3
Ron - 1
If I've got anybody in the wrong list, re-arrange it.
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Who's got the AGENDA is obvious,
I mean which side of the debate posts political BS instead of Physics????
When WE go off topic its about DVRs
Arthur
Mel,
Great post. Revealing in more than one way. I thought it was me, like I couldn't figure out which side of the fence some posters are on because I don't give a crap about fires and planes or lies or the 5 sided thing, so I don't read posts with those subjects much.
No, it's not just me, you're having a hard time with it too. But you've got the guts to try and judge it with a post. If you can do that I can comment on it. THX!
Your choice of labels is interesting too. You've got the obvious CS in that spot at the top. right where I'd put him. But RealityCheck, Adoucette, Shagster, ScottS seemed to post some sincere stuff that supports demolition, others too. Adoucette and newton have even recognized important facts of the structure.
I'd note that CS's tone has gotten shrill and almost desparate as our informed, experienced, rational agreement repeatedly, comprhensively underlined the fact that what we saw can only be a demolition.
I see an issue where posters confirm a piece of logic but then do not support it's use any further, as if they want the truth and will indirectly work for it with others but will not work to consolodate it for meaningful usage.
I'm going to re-label and re-arrange the posters and their positions in a less contentious way.
DECIEVED & SEEKING COMFORT
Schneibster (CS) - 31
Adoucette - 15
newton - 5
DECIEVED & SEEKING TRUTH
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
RealityCheck - 16
ScottS. - 3
Shagster - 3
Ron - 1
If I've got anybody in the wrong list, re-arrange it.
.
I'm back sooner than expected. Bloody weather! Left it too late. Set foot on sand. Cold wind blows in and clouds obscure the sun. Shortest walk I've had in a long time! Oh well, there's always Physorg to lighten the mood (almost as good as a dolphins frolic, hehehe).
I'm back sooner than expected. Bloody weather! Left it too late. Set foot on sand. Cold wind blows in and clouds obscure the sun. Shortest walk I've had in a long time! Oh well, there's always Physorg to lighten the mood (almost as good as a dolphins frolic, hehehe).
QUOTE (sock puppet+Mar 10 2006, 05:49 AM)
Arthur exposes himself as a shill by his abundant use of emoticons.
It's all too obvious
You are correct.
It is a societal role based in control of a group by denial that utilizes ridicule for enforcement. We learn as children in a group to respond with anger and frustration to this which often causes confusion or compulsive action not furthering the groups goals but enhancing the apparent comfort of the denier who cease the ridicule, returning a calmer exchange as long as the knowledge ban is observed.
It's all too obvious
You are correct.
It is a societal role based in control of a group by denial that utilizes ridicule for enforcement. We learn as children in a group to respond with anger and frustration to this which often causes confusion or compulsive action not furthering the groups goals but enhancing the apparent comfort of the denier who cease the ridicule, returning a calmer exchange as long as the knowledge ban is observed.
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 10 2006, 06:07 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 05:10 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 10 2006, 04:58 AM)
Interesting forum summary:
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
The numbers speak for themselves.
Isn't that the point about statistics?....that they 'speak' the 'sweetest' lies if you don't look BEHIND the numbers?
For instance: when a CTer (1 off) comes up with a silly assertion, there have been several Physorg posters (lately mostly 2 off at any one time) to provide enlightenment to that ONE CTer.
See how the numbers work out if you look closely? ONE post from a CTer attracts THREE replies. Hence the 2 to 1 ratio of non-CTer to CTer posts.
Mel, lay off the statistics or you'll go mad trying to make sense of it without proper 'critical analysis' skills. Cheers!
RC.
.
Posting numbers since page 502:
CONSPIRATORS:
Schneibster (CS) - 31
RealityCheck - 16
Adoucette - 15
Shagster - 3
ScottS. - 3
Ron - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 69
WHISTLEBLOWERS
ReasonWhy - 8
Foxx - 5
newton - 5
frater plecticus - 4
Christophera - 3
Mel - 3
gordon - 2
JamesX - 1
zoktoberfest - 1
Scott McClellan - 1
OpelGT73 - 1
TOTAL POSTS: 34
So, in the last several pages we have 17 posters, 1/3 of whom are conspirators making ~70% of all posts.
Who has the agenda here?
Hi Mel!
As the old saying goes, Mel: "There are lies, there are damn lies....and then there are statistics". hehehe. I see you have now taken it to the 'statistics' level. hehehe.
Cheers!
RC.
.
The numbers speak for themselves.
Isn't that the point about statistics?....that they 'speak' the 'sweetest' lies if you don't look BEHIND the numbers?
For instance: when a CTer (1 off) comes up with a silly assertion, there have been several Physorg posters (lately mostly 2 off at any one time) to provide enlightenment to that ONE CTer.
See how the numbers work out if you look closely? ONE post from a CTer attracts THREE replies. Hence the 2 to 1 ratio of non-CTer to CTer posts.
Mel, lay off the statistics or you'll go mad trying to make sense of it without proper 'critical analysis' skills. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 10:03 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 01:53 AM)
I stand corrected. I was talking about the floors responsible for total progressive collapse. It might not have put the fires out however it could have made them less intense if they really did exhist. I don’t believe they ever expect to totally put the fire out from the outside.
Ok, you're the fire chief.
The building has UNKNOWN DAMAGE.
The building is creaking and out of plumb.
Fires are burning on multiple floors (9 or more)
You've just lost tons of equipment (hard to replace specialized equipment)
You've just lost hundreds of men that day (harder to replace)
To fight the fire at First Interstate took 30 Companies and was on fewer floors
You know that there are NO PEOPLE left in the building
Given all that, would YOU risk several hunred men to save a hunk of already severely damaged steel and concrete, realizing that by the time you get the fires out it will probably be a write off anyway?
Arthur
I would certainly set up automatic hoses from the fire trucks. I noticed automatic hoses were in place right after the collapse, cooling the thermite.
Ok, you're the fire chief.
The building has UNKNOWN DAMAGE.
The building is creaking and out of plumb.
Fires are burning on multiple floors (9 or more)
You've just lost tons of equipment (hard to replace specialized equipment)
You've just lost hundreds of men that day (harder to replace)
To fight the fire at First Interstate took 30 Companies and was on fewer floors
You know that there are NO PEOPLE left in the building
Given all that, would YOU risk several hunred men to save a hunk of already severely damaged steel and concrete, realizing that by the time you get the fires out it will probably be a write off anyway?
Arthur
I would certainly set up automatic hoses from the fire trucks. I noticed automatic hoses were in place right after the collapse, cooling the thermite.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 10 2006, 06:17 AM)
I'm going to re-label and re-arrange the posters and their positions in a less contentious way.
DECIEVED & SEEKING COMFORT
Schneibster (CS) - 31
Adoucette - 15
newton - 5
HAHAHA!
look, guy(s). we're in a club together!
HAHA!
DECIEVED & SEEKING COMFORT
Schneibster (CS) - 31
Adoucette - 15
newton - 5
HAHAHA!
look, guy(s). we're in a club together!
HAHA!
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 06:29 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 9 2006, 10:03 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 10 2006, 01:53 AM)
I stand corrected. I was talking about the floors responsible for total progressive collapse. It might not have put the fires out however it could have made them less intense if they really did exhist. I don’t believe they ever expect to totally put the fire out from the outside.
Ok, you're the fire chief.
The building has UNKNOWN DAMAGE.
The building is creaking and out of plumb.
Fires are burning on multiple floors (9 or more)
You've just lost tons of equipment (hard to replace specialized equipment)
You've just lost hundreds of men that day (harder to replace)
To fight the fire at First Interstate took 30 Companies and was on fewer floors
You know that there are NO PEOPLE left in the building
Given all that, would YOU risk several hunred men to save a hunk of already severely damaged steel and concrete, realizing that by the time you get the fires out it will probably be a write off anyway?
Arthur
I would certainly set up automatic hoses from the fire trucks. I noticed automatic hoses were in place right after the collapse cooling the thermite.
Really?
RC.
.
Does this model show the sequence where the upper sections exerted a force upwards while simultaneously travelling downwards? Or is that explanation pending?
Gordon.
I don't have a complete answer to what you are asking. My point is mainly that I hear remarks sometimes about how much load the building could have supported near the collapse front based on models that assume the building was still standing normally, which is a logical problem. Once the collapse started, those numbers aren't valid anymore for the region near the collapse front, because the columns are no longer vertical and in line with each other. The loads the building could handle are based on models which are based on the specific geometry of the building components when it was still standing normally. I don't know how to explain it better than that.
It's not so much an argument over how many columns were buckled and how many might have been in tension as the top of the building tilted. If everything buckled from the start, the same problem is there. The geometry of all those components is no longer the same as when the building was standing normally and the simple models that described it when it was standing intact are no longer valid near the collapse region.
The models that predict the loads the building could handle are still valid for the building at the lower levels away from the collapse front; otherwise, the bottom of the building wouldn't have been able to remain standing while the collapse front approached it. However, in the region of the collapse front, there are chaotic events happening. The building essentially got unzippered as the collapse front progressed.
For a model to be accurate, it would have to describe the mechanisms that undid the building in that collapse which is different than relatively simple models that are used to describe the loads the building can handle when it is still standing intact and static. For example, a model that doesn't take those chaotic events into account may overestimate the strength of the building and predict that it should have still been standing. That doesn't mean that some other mysterious event took the building down.
No one will ever have a completely accurate model for the collapse due to that chaotic nature. The only totally accurate 'model' of an event is the event itself. A model by it's nature is not 100% accurate, otherwise it wouldn't be a model.
Once most or all the columns are buckled or disconnected in the collapse region, the loads from the upper part of the building that started to topple are no longer conveyed to the lower part of the building (below the collpase front) as they normally would be through straight columns. The floor just below the collapse front would be struck and dynamic loads (much larger than static ones) would have to be conveyed through the floor, then through the floor/column joints, and then to the columns below. That's a different mechanism of conveying loads compared with a building that is still intact. For example, the floor receiving the impact could break or the joints securing the floor to the columns could break. It's also a dynamic situation as opposed to static.
It looked like it was relatively easy for the towers to become unzippered. The rubble didn't look like a mass of still-connected twisted metal on the ground. There were many free pieces unbent. Many perimeter panels broke away from the floor connections. It looked more like a tinker toy that came apart. The fact that a core spire about 40 or more floors and tall sections of perimeter panels remained standing with nothing connected to them is a testament to how easy it was to unzipper floors from the columns.
In short, the scenario described with an assymetric initiation would result in an assymetric collapse with the top section tearing itself down the side of the tower in the region of least resistance to the angular momentum.
To achieve a symmetric initiation would not require the removal of all the columns structural ability but it does require that no significant angular momentum is imparted to the upper section.
The top part of the building doesn't stay connected to the bottom part through columns once it has tilted enough and the columns are compromised. It's already starting to fall as a whole and doesn't have much time to rotate. Also, it's not as if the top part of the building is going to continue rotating freely all they way down the collapse. It strikes floors further down as the collapse continues which places forces on it, forces which can stop it from rotating as the building is collapsing.
If you had a situation like felling a tree, there is support maintained on one side at the base of the cut that keeps applying a force to one side which allows the tree to continue to rotate. That isn't the case with a mostly empty structure like the trade tower. The support opposite the side that initially buckled is compromised. The top part of the building as a whole starts falling downward. There's no support left on only one side to keep it rotating.
The top part also gets destroyed as it falls, so eventually there's no top part left to rotate anyway.
Ok, you're the fire chief.
The building has UNKNOWN DAMAGE.
The building is creaking and out of plumb.
Fires are burning on multiple floors (9 or more)
You've just lost tons of equipment (hard to replace specialized equipment)
You've just lost hundreds of men that day (harder to replace)
To fight the fire at First Interstate took 30 Companies and was on fewer floors
You know that there are NO PEOPLE left in the building
Given all that, would YOU risk several hunred men to save a hunk of already severely damaged steel and concrete, realizing that by the time you get the fires out it will probably be a write off anyway?
Arthur
I would certainly set up automatic hoses from the fire trucks. I noticed automatic hoses were in place right after the collapse cooling the thermite.
Really?
RC.
.
What do you see in this photo...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig9_51.jpg
I find this to be a very interesting photo, lot's going on here. This is from the north face of WTC 2 taken about 16 - 17 minutes before the building fell apart.
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'.
The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed. If you download the pdf document you can blow up the photo to get a better look at various parts of the picture. I've blown it up to the point it begins to pixcelate {sp?}, and you can just make out some faint line that could be anything.
Here's NIST's enlargement from their original photo, and you can make out these 'hanging objects' better in this one...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig962.html
This is quite the clever smoke and mirrors trick. The old magician trick of keeping you busy looking 'over here' instead of 'over there' (where the real action is going on). Let me show you what I mean.
There are a half a dozen things I could point out in the photo, but for this post I'll just concentrate on the one column # 254 (floor 79).
I would guess that the majority of folks looking at this photo may very well look at the corner fire, see the flames and smoke, but never having questioned the official story will just see flames and smoke... not recognizing that this plume of white smoke should not be there. It is unusual smoke for a building fire. It's white. Thermite / thermate incendiaries give off a white smoke, but then maybe it was just one of the aircraft magnesium wheels that stuck to that column and caught fire. Let's zoom in a little...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg
The corner fire on the 81st floor is readily visible, easy to see the flames there, but is that smoke coming from there? NO. Maybe it's coming from some unseen fire behind that black smoke? NO. Oddly enough that column seems to be on fire, yet we see no fire at that area. That's easy to tell because if you look at the right side of the picture the other debris fire is clearly visible even though it is set back a distance from the columns themselves. Nope, no fire heating up that column to make it burn like that.
If we zoom in a little closer, it is easy to see that that particular column is heated to the point that it seems to be melting the aluminum, but it is the steel column itself which seems to be burning. Either that or the spandrel in that particular location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/003thermNF942.jpg
Yep, it certainly is glowing hot on that one particular column, but no fire that close to do that to the column.
Lot's of very unusual things going on in those fires.
Just thought some here would like to see these pics.
Cheers.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig9_51.jpg
I find this to be a very interesting photo, lot's going on here. This is from the north face of WTC 2 taken about 16 - 17 minutes before the building fell apart.
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'.
The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed. If you download the pdf document you can blow up the photo to get a better look at various parts of the picture. I've blown it up to the point it begins to pixcelate {sp?}, and you can just make out some faint line that could be anything.
Here's NIST's enlargement from their original photo, and you can make out these 'hanging objects' better in this one...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig962.html
This is quite the clever smoke and mirrors trick. The old magician trick of keeping you busy looking 'over here' instead of 'over there' (where the real action is going on). Let me show you what I mean.
There are a half a dozen things I could point out in the photo, but for this post I'll just concentrate on the one column # 254 (floor 79).
I would guess that the majority of folks looking at this photo may very well look at the corner fire, see the flames and smoke, but never having questioned the official story will just see flames and smoke... not recognizing that this plume of white smoke should not be there. It is unusual smoke for a building fire. It's white. Thermite / thermate incendiaries give off a white smoke, but then maybe it was just one of the aircraft magnesium wheels that stuck to that column and caught fire. Let's zoom in a little...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg
The corner fire on the 81st floor is readily visible, easy to see the flames there, but is that smoke coming from there? NO. Maybe it's coming from some unseen fire behind that black smoke? NO. Oddly enough that column seems to be on fire, yet we see no fire at that area. That's easy to tell because if you look at the right side of the picture the other debris fire is clearly visible even though it is set back a distance from the columns themselves. Nope, no fire heating up that column to make it burn like that.
If we zoom in a little closer, it is easy to see that that particular column is heated to the point that it seems to be melting the aluminum, but it is the steel column itself which seems to be burning. Either that or the spandrel in that particular location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/003thermNF942.jpg
Yep, it certainly is glowing hot on that one particular column, but no fire that close to do that to the column.
Lot's of very unusual things going on in those fires.
Just thought some here would like to see these pics.
Cheers.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 10 2006, 07:37 AM)
What do you see in this photo...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig9_51.jpg
I find this to be a very interesting photo, lot's going on here. This is from the north face of WTC 2 taken about 16 - 17 minutes before the building fell apart.
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'.
The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed. If you download the pdf document you can blow up the photo to get a better look at various parts of the picture. I've blown it up to the point it begins to pixcelate {sp?}, and you can just make out some faint line that could be anything.
Here's NIST's enlargement from their original photo, and you can make out these 'hanging objects' better in this one...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig962.html
This is quite the clever smoke and mirrors trick. The old magician trick of keeping you busy looking 'over here' instead of 'over there' (where the real action is going on). Let me show you what I mean.
There are a half a dozen things I could point out in the photo, but for this post I'll just concentrate on the one column # 254 (floor 79).
I would guess that the majority of folks looking at this photo may very well look at the corner fire, see the flames and smoke, but never having questioned the official story will just see flames and smoke... not recognizing that this plume of white smoke should not be there. It is unusual smoke for a building fire. It's white. Thermite / thermate incendiaries give off a white smoke, but then maybe it was just one of the aircraft magnesium wheels that stuck to that column and caught fire. Let's zoom in a little...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg
The corner fire on the 81st floor is readily visible, easy to see the flames there, but is that smoke coming from there? NO. Maybe it's coming from some unseen fire behind that black smoke? NO. Oddly enough that column seems to be on fire, yet we see no fire at that area. That's easy to tell because if you look at the right side of the picture the other debris fire is clearly visible even though it is set back a distance from the columns themselves. Nope, no fire heating up that column to make it burn like that.
If we zoom in a little closer, it is easy to see that that particular column is heated to the point that it seems to be melting the aluminum, but it is the steel column itself which seems to be burning. Either that or the spandrel in that particular location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/003thermNF942.jpg
Yep, it certainly is glowing hot on that one particular column, but no fire that close to do that to the column.
Lot's of very unusual things going on in those fires.
Just thought some here would like to see these pics.
Cheers.
Could you show me the 9:46 and 9:52 zoom shots of that please?
If you want melting alumium (Other than the later shots) I'd suggest showing the 9:27 shot...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig9_51.jpg
I find this to be a very interesting photo, lot's going on here. This is from the north face of WTC 2 taken about 16 - 17 minutes before the building fell apart.
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'.
The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed. If you download the pdf document you can blow up the photo to get a better look at various parts of the picture. I've blown it up to the point it begins to pixcelate {sp?}, and you can just make out some faint line that could be anything.
Here's NIST's enlargement from their original photo, and you can make out these 'hanging objects' better in this one...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig962.html
This is quite the clever smoke and mirrors trick. The old magician trick of keeping you busy looking 'over here' instead of 'over there' (where the real action is going on). Let me show you what I mean.
There are a half a dozen things I could point out in the photo, but for this post I'll just concentrate on the one column # 254 (floor 79).
I would guess that the majority of folks looking at this photo may very well look at the corner fire, see the flames and smoke, but never having questioned the official story will just see flames and smoke... not recognizing that this plume of white smoke should not be there. It is unusual smoke for a building fire. It's white. Thermite / thermate incendiaries give off a white smoke, but then maybe it was just one of the aircraft magnesium wheels that stuck to that column and caught fire. Let's zoom in a little...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg
The corner fire on the 81st floor is readily visible, easy to see the flames there, but is that smoke coming from there? NO. Maybe it's coming from some unseen fire behind that black smoke? NO. Oddly enough that column seems to be on fire, yet we see no fire at that area. That's easy to tell because if you look at the right side of the picture the other debris fire is clearly visible even though it is set back a distance from the columns themselves. Nope, no fire heating up that column to make it burn like that.
If we zoom in a little closer, it is easy to see that that particular column is heated to the point that it seems to be melting the aluminum, but it is the steel column itself which seems to be burning. Either that or the spandrel in that particular location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/003thermNF942.jpg
Yep, it certainly is glowing hot on that one particular column, but no fire that close to do that to the column.
Lot's of very unusual things going on in those fires.
Just thought some here would like to see these pics.
Cheers.
Could you show me the 9:46 and 9:52 zoom shots of that please?
If you want melting alumium (Other than the later shots) I'd suggest showing the 9:27 shot...
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 10 2006, 04:03 AM)
let's assume that you somehow have an initiation causing a buckle in one face. To get that then there must be a rotation of the upper section. There must therefore be a centre of rotation Where is the centre of rotation? Without simultaneous buckling failure of the core columns or some other downward movement of the core that axis would have to lie through the core. This could allow the compressive force in the opposite wall columns to begin to move out of compresssion towards tension and it has been postulated that this could lead to forces which would cause tensile failure. However any sudden failure of the columns resistance, as this implies, would allow further angular momentum and the upper section would tend to continue rotating and pulling the collapse assymetrically off to the side of the buckle. In resisting the tensile forces the opposite wall columns would bend and tend to crush the floors or push them inwards. Any compressive failures of floors would tend to allow the angular momentum to continue.
This angular momentum would allow that the previously vertical force through the core can now be resolved into a vertical force and a horizontal reactive force. The vertical force is a maximum at the vertical position and decreases as the angle of rotation increases, while the horizontal reaction increases. The horizontal reaction will result in a bending of the core columns since they are cantilevered from the ground and this bending will itself allow the angular momentum.
Similarly the columns of the walls running perpendicular to the buckled face would suffer bending stresses in the weaker axis, although this would also find resistance in spandrel plate torsion.
This demonstrates that a buckling failure in one face without downward movement of the core would tend to allow the angular momentum to either find new equilibriums somehow or continue and tear itself down the side of the tower.
Gordon.
Perhaps there is another factor that might appear as a total compressive failure of 1/2 the building pivoting some where near the opposite side.
Here is WTC 2 beginning to fall,
I would estimate that at least 5 floors worth of perimeter box columns and the core have totally lost their bearing ability of the side of the face impacted. There was one hole in the north side where the engine went through near the corner and that was it. The left engine punched through the core walls and slammed up against the inside of the interior box columns on the east face but did not pierce it. The .gif is quite accurate in every other way.
This angular momentum would allow that the previously vertical force through the core can now be resolved into a vertical force and a horizontal reactive force. The vertical force is a maximum at the vertical position and decreases as the angle of rotation increases, while the horizontal reaction increases. The horizontal reaction will result in a bending of the core columns since they are cantilevered from the ground and this bending will itself allow the angular momentum.
Similarly the columns of the walls running perpendicular to the buckled face would suffer bending stresses in the weaker axis, although this would also find resistance in spandrel plate torsion.
This demonstrates that a buckling failure in one face without downward movement of the core would tend to allow the angular momentum to either find new equilibriums somehow or continue and tear itself down the side of the tower.
Gordon.
Perhaps there is another factor that might appear as a total compressive failure of 1/2 the building pivoting some where near the opposite side.
Here is WTC 2 beginning to fall,
I would estimate that at least 5 floors worth of perimeter box columns and the core have totally lost their bearing ability of the side of the face impacted. There was one hole in the north side where the engine went through near the corner and that was it. The left engine punched through the core walls and slammed up against the inside of the interior box columns on the east face but did not pierce it. The .gif is quite accurate in every other way.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 10 2006, 02:14 AM)
Does this model show the sequence where the upper sections exerted a force upwards while simultaneously travelling downwards? Or is that explanation pending?
Gordon.
I don't have a complete answer to what you are asking. My point is mainly that I hear remarks sometimes about how much load the building could have supported near the collapse front based on models that assume the building was still standing normally, which is a logical problem. Once the collapse started, those numbers aren't valid anymore for the region near the collapse front, because the columns are no longer vertical and in line with each other. The loads the building could handle are based on models which are based on the specific geometry of the building components when it was still standing normally. I don't know how to explain it better than that.
It's not so much an argument over how many columns were buckled and how many might have been in tension as the top of the building tilted. If everything buckled from the start, the same problem is there. The geometry of all those components is no longer the same as when the building was standing normally and the simple models that described it when it was standing intact are no longer valid near the collapse region.
The models that predict the loads the building could handle are still valid for the building at the lower levels away from the collapse front; otherwise, the bottom of the building wouldn't have been able to remain standing while the collapse front approached it. However, in the region of the collapse front, there are chaotic events happening. The building essentially got unzippered as the collapse front progressed.
For a model to be accurate, it would have to describe the mechanisms that undid the building in that collapse which is different than relatively simple models that are used to describe the loads the building can handle when it is still standing intact and static. For example, a model that doesn't take those chaotic events into account may overestimate the strength of the building and predict that it should have still been standing. That doesn't mean that some other mysterious event took the building down.
No one will ever have a completely accurate model for the collapse due to that chaotic nature. The only totally accurate 'model' of an event is the event itself. A model by it's nature is not 100% accurate, otherwise it wouldn't be a model.
Once most or all the columns are buckled or disconnected in the collapse region, the loads from the upper part of the building that started to topple are no longer conveyed to the lower part of the building (below the collpase front) as they normally would be through straight columns. The floor just below the collapse front would be struck and dynamic loads (much larger than static ones) would have to be conveyed through the floor, then through the floor/column joints, and then to the columns below. That's a different mechanism of conveying loads compared with a building that is still intact. For example, the floor receiving the impact could break or the joints securing the floor to the columns could break. It's also a dynamic situation as opposed to static.
It looked like it was relatively easy for the towers to become unzippered. The rubble didn't look like a mass of still-connected twisted metal on the ground. There were many free pieces unbent. Many perimeter panels broke away from the floor connections. It looked more like a tinker toy that came apart. The fact that a core spire about 40 or more floors and tall sections of perimeter panels remained standing with nothing connected to them is a testament to how easy it was to unzipper floors from the columns.
Anyone know if there is supposed to be 1x3 box columns at the 83 floor? I haven't read everything about the WTC documents and the NIST reports.
One of the diagrams states that floor 83 is the point where some box columns change to wide flange columns.
One of the diagrams states that floor 83 is the point where some box columns change to wide flange columns.
I'm wondering if that pic below is the stairwell where people were rescued after the collapse. You may recall that a woman named Josephine and about a half dozen firefighters survived the collapse in a stairwell around the 7th or 8th floor. The news reported that the stairwells near the ground level had concrete around them and that's probably why they survived. The vertical concrete was supposedly only on floors near the ground level.
I'm not sure which columns exactly you're referring to. Maybe you could point it out with an arrow. I see some aluminum facade that is detached on a number of columns which reveals some light colored insulation material that was around the perimeter columns. It has a light color but isn't a flame.
Once most or all the columns are buckled or disconnected in the collapse region, the loads from the upper part of the building that started to topple are no longer conveyed to the lower part of the building (below the collpase front) as they normally would be through straight columns.
At the point in time when the failed columns develop buckling points, the load required to continue those buckles falls in magnitude. Without immediate removal or large reduction or transfer of that load which has induced failure the buckle will continue to progress.
It is logical that the buckle failures began in the area most affected by aircraft collision and thermal effects. This would produce areas within which the columns are buckling and other areas where they are not.
The result of these failures is an angular momentum of the top section and this movement will reduce the vertical load on the unbuckled sections while still attempting to load the columns which are beginning to buckle
This uneven resistance to any downward movement of the section above initiation will thus exacerbate the already asymetric effects. There is no reason to believe that this assymetry once advanced could correct itself and in the absence of such a correction the result would be an assymetric collapse.
The floor just below the collapse front would be struck and dynamic loads (much larger than static ones) would have to be conveyed through the floor, then through the floor/column joints, and then to the columns below. That's a different mechanism of conveying loads compared with a building that is still intact. For example, the floor receiving the impact could break or the joints securing the floor to the columns could break. It's also a dynamic situation as opposed to static.
That is correct to some extent but what is important is what struck the floors and what the effect would be. Continuing the assymetric collapse scenario, as the angular movement meets less and less resistance from the buckling columns, the floor can now be impacted by some of the columns from the upper section. The resistance of the floor should not be downplayed because this is the only resistance that the angular momentum has to overcome. Given that a large proportion of the mass of the upper section would now be acting on a single floor through the fractured or severed or buckled ends of only a few columns then I cannot see them offering great resistance and the column ends would continue to impact subsequent floors. All of this is adding to the angular movement and momentum while reducing the vertical forces on the remaining columns.
The columns which did not suffer from the initial buckling failure would now be carrying less load than they were previously so they would not now suffer from a failure in that mode. They are however subject to growing bending moments and associated shear forces from the resolution of the previously vertical force.
In short, the scenario described with an assymetric initiation would result in an assymetric collapse with the top section tearing itself down the side of the tower in the region of least resistance to the angular momentum.
To achieve a symmetric initiation would not require the removal of all the columns structural ability but it does require that no significant angular momentum is imparted to the upper section.
At the point in time when the failed columns develop buckling points, the load required to continue those buckles falls in magnitude. Without immediate removal or large reduction or transfer of that load which has induced failure the buckle will continue to progress.
It is logical that the buckle failures began in the area most affected by aircraft collision and thermal effects. This would produce areas within which the columns are buckling and other areas where they are not.
The result of these failures is an angular momentum of the top section and this movement will reduce the vertical load on the unbuckled sections while still attempting to load the columns which are beginning to buckle
This uneven resistance to any downward movement of the section above initiation will thus exacerbate the already asymetric effects. There is no reason to believe that this assymetry once advanced could correct itself and in the absence of such a correction the result would be an assymetric collapse.
The floor just below the collapse front would be struck and dynamic loads (much larger than static ones) would have to be conveyed through the floor, then through the floor/column joints, and then to the columns below. That's a different mechanism of conveying loads compared with a building that is still intact. For example, the floor receiving the impact could break or the joints securing the floor to the columns could break. It's also a dynamic situation as opposed to static.
That is correct to some extent but what is important is what struck the floors and what the effect would be. Continuing the assymetric collapse scenario, as the angular movement meets less and less resistance from the buckling columns, the floor can now be impacted by some of the columns from the upper section. The resistance of the floor should not be downplayed because this is the only resistance that the angular momentum has to overcome. Given that a large proportion of the mass of the upper section would now be acting on a single floor through the fractured or severed or buckled ends of only a few columns then I cannot see them offering great resistance and the column ends would continue to impact subsequent floors. All of this is adding to the angular movement and momentum while reducing the vertical forces on the remaining columns.
The columns which did not suffer from the initial buckling failure would now be carrying less load than they were previously so they would not now suffer from a failure in that mode. They are however subject to growing bending moments and associated shear forces from the resolution of the previously vertical force.
In short, the scenario described with an assymetric initiation would result in an assymetric collapse with the top section tearing itself down the side of the tower in the region of least resistance to the angular momentum.
To achieve a symmetric initiation would not require the removal of all the columns structural ability but it does require that no significant angular momentum is imparted to the upper section.
Perhaps there is another factor that might appear as a total compressive failure of 1/2 the building pivoting some where near the opposite side.
If the centre of rotation was at the opposite wall to the wall which suffers initial buckling failure or on an axis between this and the core then the core columns below the impact site would have to move downwards somehow, by about two and a half stories if the buckled wall moved down five stories. Alternatively and in the absence of that downward movement then the core would have protruded upwards by two and a half stories and interfered with or raised the hat truss and associated roof objects by that amount. The absence of the expected evidence for the latter should make us examine the case for the former.
If downward movement is explainable by an almost simultaneous failure of the core and a large proportion of the perimeter columns then the scenario regarding an assymetric collapse, which I have explained in earlier posts, would apply.
Logic would dictate that you are correct since initiation failure must affect the load bearing elements. The core was the main load bearing element and it is this area where any factors likely to initiate collapse had to be effective, rather than be limited only to effects upon the perimeter columns.
Gordon.
If the centre of rotation was at the opposite wall to the wall which suffers initial buckling failure or on an axis between this and the core then the core columns below the impact site would have to move downwards somehow, by about two and a half stories if the buckled wall moved down five stories. Alternatively and in the absence of that downward movement then the core would have protruded upwards by two and a half stories and interfered with or raised the hat truss and associated roof objects by that amount. The absence of the expected evidence for the latter should make us examine the case for the former.
If downward movement is explainable by an almost simultaneous failure of the core and a large proportion of the perimeter columns then the scenario regarding an assymetric collapse, which I have explained in earlier posts, would apply.
Logic would dictate that you are correct since initiation failure must affect the load bearing elements. The core was the main load bearing element and it is this area where any factors likely to initiate collapse had to be effective, rather than be limited only to effects upon the perimeter columns.
Gordon.
Just in case anyone has got the impression that high or even low explosives are necessary to cause a controlled demolition.
With the benefit of the knowledge of the much admired, respected and sadly missed Fred Dibnah, and equipped with little more than a few wooden railway sleepers, a few old tyres, a hammer and chisel a protracted and dignified end was given to many an old and unused factory chimney.
Gordon.
With the benefit of the knowledge of the much admired, respected and sadly missed Fred Dibnah, and equipped with little more than a few wooden railway sleepers, a few old tyres, a hammer and chisel a protracted and dignified end was given to many an old and unused factory chimney.
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 10 2006, 12:13 PM)
In short, the scenario described with an assymetric initiation would result in an assymetric collapse with the top section tearing itself down the side of the tower in the region of least resistance to the angular momentum.
To achieve a symmetric initiation would not require the removal of all the columns structural ability but it does require that no significant angular momentum is imparted to the upper section.
The top part of the building doesn't stay connected to the bottom part through columns once it has tilted enough and the columns are compromised. It's already starting to fall as a whole and doesn't have much time to rotate. Also, it's not as if the top part of the building is going to continue rotating freely all they way down the collapse. It strikes floors further down as the collapse continues which places forces on it, forces which can stop it from rotating as the building is collapsing.
If you had a situation like felling a tree, there is support maintained on one side at the base of the cut that keeps applying a force to one side which allows the tree to continue to rotate. That isn't the case with a mostly empty structure like the trade tower. The support opposite the side that initially buckled is compromised. The top part of the building as a whole starts falling downward. There's no support left on only one side to keep it rotating.
The top part also gets destroyed as it falls, so eventually there's no top part left to rotate anyway.
The top part of the building doesn't stay connected to the bottom part through columns once it has tilted enough and the columns are compromised. It's already starting to fall as a whole and doesn't have much time to rotate. Also, it's not as if the top part of the building is going to continue rotating freely all they way down the collapse. It strikes floors further down as the collapse continues which places forces on it, forces which can stop it from rotating as the building is collapsing.
If you had a situation like felling a tree, there is support maintained on one side at the base of the cut that keeps applying a force to one side which allows the tree to continue to rotate. That isn't the case with a mostly empty structure like the trade tower. The support opposite the side that initially buckled is compromised. The top part of the building as a whole starts falling downward. There's no support left on only one side to keep it rotating.
The top part also gets destroyed as it falls, so eventually there's no top part left to rotate anyway.
If the top part of the bulding becomes disconnected from the upper section at some point, we know that this must have come about either simultaneously across all the perimeter and core columns or as having an initial localised source or sources.
In the latter case I have shown that this would give rise to an assymetric effect. You say that the support opposite the side that initially buckled is compromised and while this may be true the effect on the already buckled areas would far outweigh this. Remember that the force required at the end of a full buckle failure is 25% of the force required to start the buckle. You then state that there's no support left on one side to keep it rotating, but how do you progress from compromised to no support. What mechanism?
Don't you find it odd that you were previously arguing that the floors would offer little or no resistance but now you are arguing that they had the ability to arrest the angular rotation which has already buckled several column sections to destruction?
Gordon
If you had a situation like felling a tree, there is support maintained on one side at the base of the cut that keeps applying a force to one side which allows the tree to continue to rotate. That isn't the case with a mostly empty structure like the trade tower. The support opposite the side that initially buckled is compromised. The top part of the building as a whole starts falling downward. There's no support left on only one side to keep it rotating.
The top part also gets destroyed as it falls, so eventually there's no top part left to rotate anyway.
If the top part of the bulding becomes disconnected from the upper section at some point, we know that this must have come about either simultaneously across all the perimeter and core columns or as having an initial localised source or sources.
In the latter case I have shown that this would give rise to an assymetric effect. You say that the support opposite the side that initially buckled is compromised and while this may be true the effect on the already buckled areas would far outweigh this. Remember that the force required at the end of a full buckle failure is 25% of the force required to start the buckle. You then state that there's no support left on one side to keep it rotating, but how do you progress from compromised to no support. What mechanism?
Don't you find it odd that you were previously arguing that the floors would offer little or no resistance but now you are arguing that they had the ability to arrest the angular rotation which has already buckled several column sections to destruction?
Gordon
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 10 2006, 02:23 AM)
QUOTE (sock puppet+Mar 10 2006, 05:49 AM)
Arthur exposes himself as a shill by his abundant use of emoticons.
It's all too obvious
You are correct.
It is a societal role based in control of a group by denial that utilizes ridicule for enforcement. We learn as children in a group to respond with anger and frustration to this which often causes confusion or compulsive action not furthering the groups goals but enhancing the apparent comfort of the denier who cease the ridicule, returning a calmer exchange as long as the knowledge ban is observed.
Arthur
It's all too obvious
You are correct.
It is a societal role based in control of a group by denial that utilizes ridicule for enforcement. We learn as children in a group to respond with anger and frustration to this which often causes confusion or compulsive action not furthering the groups goals but enhancing the apparent comfort of the denier who cease the ridicule, returning a calmer exchange as long as the knowledge ban is observed.
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 10 2006, 01:22 PM)
Remember that the force required at the end of a full buckle failure is 25% of the force required to start the buckle. You then state that there's no support left on one side to keep it rotating, but how do you progress from compromised to no support. What mechanism?
Regarding what you say about the buckling, that's assuming that these columns all stay together as one piece. They can also fail at their splices, and relatively easily as they were not designed to handle large amounts of shear or tension. It's one thing to bend a little in the wind a fraction of an inch per floor, but a 10 or 15% tilt along a few floors is far greater. As I mentioned earlier, we can't assume the building is going to behave under load during collapse as it would when it was standing static under normal conditions.
This structure was like an egg shell. It's difficult to imagine how the top section could be tilted 10 to 15 degrees and not have most of the columns compromised either through buckling or breaking of splices. Imagine what happens as the buckling gets more and more severe. Either the column is going to fail by bending in half like a pretzel or the column spllces are going to fracture.
What percentage of columns found in the rubble were buckled compared with ones that were still straight, and how many columns were seen still attached to one another at their splices in the rubble? Many broke at their splices. The ones that managed to stay together were the ones in the spire or sections of perimeter that were still standing. The splices were weak points much like the floor connections. Note how the column splices in the spire couldn't even keep that structure up as it wiggled a little. Imagine what happens in a 15 degree tilt.
Regarding the floor connections, if they are weak that also aids in the structure being compromised as it tilts. The rigidity of the structure depended on the floors connecting the inner and perimeter columns. Sections of floors probably detached also as the top part tilted. If anything, that would make the region where the building tilted even more compromised, as there would be runs of columns end to end with their splices (weak points)) and no floor connection to help maintain their rigidity.
The floor connections on the lower part don't have to be strong in order to apply a force on a rotating upper section that's falling. There is still the inertia of the floors themselves that is encountered during collisions on the way down. If you run into a brick wall that's suspended by some cables, you're going to feel a force. The top section didn't appear to continue to rotate much in the videos as it falls. It seemed to stay mainly in the same orientation on its way down, although it's hard to tell with all the dust in the way.
Regarding what you say about the buckling, that's assuming that these columns all stay together as one piece. They can also fail at their splices, and relatively easily as they were not designed to handle large amounts of shear or tension. It's one thing to bend a little in the wind a fraction of an inch per floor, but a 10 or 15% tilt along a few floors is far greater. As I mentioned earlier, we can't assume the building is going to behave under load during collapse as it would when it was standing static under normal conditions.
This structure was like an egg shell. It's difficult to imagine how the top section could be tilted 10 to 15 degrees and not have most of the columns compromised either through buckling or breaking of splices. Imagine what happens as the buckling gets more and more severe. Either the column is going to fail by bending in half like a pretzel or the column spllces are going to fracture.
What percentage of columns found in the rubble were buckled compared with ones that were still straight, and how many columns were seen still attached to one another at their splices in the rubble? Many broke at their splices. The ones that managed to stay together were the ones in the spire or sections of perimeter that were still standing. The splices were weak points much like the floor connections. Note how the column splices in the spire couldn't even keep that structure up as it wiggled a little. Imagine what happens in a 15 degree tilt.
Regarding the floor connections, if they are weak that also aids in the structure being compromised as it tilts. The rigidity of the structure depended on the floors connecting the inner and perimeter columns. Sections of floors probably detached also as the top part tilted. If anything, that would make the region where the building tilted even more compromised, as there would be runs of columns end to end with their splices (weak points)) and no floor connection to help maintain their rigidity.
The floor connections on the lower part don't have to be strong in order to apply a force on a rotating upper section that's falling. There is still the inertia of the floors themselves that is encountered during collisions on the way down. If you run into a brick wall that's suspended by some cables, you're going to feel a force. The top section didn't appear to continue to rotate much in the videos as it falls. It seemed to stay mainly in the same orientation on its way down, although it's hard to tell with all the dust in the way.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 10 2006, 03:37 AM)
What do you see in this photo...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig9_51.jpg
I find this to be a very interesting photo, lot's going on here. This is from the north face of WTC 2 taken about 16 - 17 minutes before the building fell apart.
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'.
The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed. If you download the pdf document you can blow up the photo to get a better look at various parts of the picture. I've blown it up to the point it begins to pixcelate {sp?}, and you can just make out some faint line that could be anything.
Here's NIST's enlargement from their original photo, and you can make out these 'hanging objects' better in this one...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig962.html
This is quite the clever smoke and mirrors trick. The old magician trick of keeping you busy looking 'over here' instead of 'over there' (where the real action is going on). Let me show you what I mean.
There are a half a dozen things I could point out in the photo, but for this post I'll just concentrate on the one column # 254 (floor 79).
I would guess that the majority of folks looking at this photo may very well look at the corner fire, see the flames and smoke, but never having questioned the official story will just see flames and smoke... not recognizing that this plume of white smoke should not be there. It is unusual smoke for a building fire. It's white. Thermite / thermate incendiaries give off a white smoke, but then maybe it was just one of the aircraft magnesium wheels that stuck to that column and caught fire. Let's zoom in a little...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg
The corner fire on the 81st floor is readily visible, easy to see the flames there, but is that smoke coming from there? NO. Maybe it's coming from some unseen fire behind that black smoke? NO. Oddly enough that column seems to be on fire, yet we see no fire at that area. That's easy to tell because if you look at the right side of the picture the other debris fire is clearly visible even though it is set back a distance from the columns themselves. Nope, no fire heating up that column to make it burn like that.
If we zoom in a little closer, it is easy to see that that particular column is heated to the point that it seems to be melting the aluminum, but it is the steel column itself which seems to be burning. Either that or the spandrel in that particular location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/003thermNF942.jpg
Yep, it certainly is glowing hot on that one particular column, but no fire that close to do that to the column.
Lot's of very unusual things going on in those fires.
Just thought some here would like to see these pics.
Cheers.
What do I see in Foxx's WRITE UP on this photo?
More Foxx lies.
What is OBVIOUS to you, tends to be BS to most of the rest of us.
If "they don't come right out and say it" its because they don't have EVIDENCE to support it.
I would ask people to go to the document and look at these pictures in Chap 9:
16, 17, 35, 37, 49, 53, 57, 61, 71 and most importantly, 9-72.
Now notice the words NIST added to the picture that Foxx shows. The picture has been "enhanced by adjusting intensity levels".
They wanted to show the INSIDE of the building. To do so they had to LIGHTEN the picture. This causes already BRIGHT SPOTS in the picture to GO TO WHITE and FLARE.
If you go to the early pictures in the doc. like 9-35 you can see that this piece of the aluminum facade on column 254 is bent out, catching the sun where the normal colums do not.
here's pic 9-16 from Foxx's site that shows that the column is bright but not on fire.
Now if you go to picture 9-72, probably the best close up of this column and taken AFTER the supposed Foxx Thermite Bomb has gone off, you will see the column is still in pristine shape. This is also the best picture of the buckled facade and explains why it catches the light and the columns around it don't.
Foxx KNOWS all this, as he's looked at these pictures for years, but he's just trying to see what he can get by with.
I can almost set my watch based on how long before this SILLY idea is abandoned and the NEXT set of Foxx LIES are posted.
tick, tick, tick......
Arthur
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig9_51.jpg
I find this to be a very interesting photo, lot's going on here. This is from the north face of WTC 2 taken about 16 - 17 minutes before the building fell apart.
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'.
The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed. If you download the pdf document you can blow up the photo to get a better look at various parts of the picture. I've blown it up to the point it begins to pixcelate {sp?}, and you can just make out some faint line that could be anything.
Here's NIST's enlargement from their original photo, and you can make out these 'hanging objects' better in this one...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig962.html
This is quite the clever smoke and mirrors trick. The old magician trick of keeping you busy looking 'over here' instead of 'over there' (where the real action is going on). Let me show you what I mean.
There are a half a dozen things I could point out in the photo, but for this post I'll just concentrate on the one column # 254 (floor 79).
I would guess that the majority of folks looking at this photo may very well look at the corner fire, see the flames and smoke, but never having questioned the official story will just see flames and smoke... not recognizing that this plume of white smoke should not be there. It is unusual smoke for a building fire. It's white. Thermite / thermate incendiaries give off a white smoke, but then maybe it was just one of the aircraft magnesium wheels that stuck to that column and caught fire. Let's zoom in a little...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg
The corner fire on the 81st floor is readily visible, easy to see the flames there, but is that smoke coming from there? NO. Maybe it's coming from some unseen fire behind that black smoke? NO. Oddly enough that column seems to be on fire, yet we see no fire at that area. That's easy to tell because if you look at the right side of the picture the other debris fire is clearly visible even though it is set back a distance from the columns themselves. Nope, no fire heating up that column to make it burn like that.
If we zoom in a little closer, it is easy to see that that particular column is heated to the point that it seems to be melting the aluminum, but it is the steel column itself which seems to be burning. Either that or the spandrel in that particular location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/003thermNF942.jpg
Yep, it certainly is glowing hot on that one particular column, but no fire that close to do that to the column.
Lot's of very unusual things going on in those fires.
Just thought some here would like to see these pics.
Cheers.
What do I see in Foxx's WRITE UP on this photo?
More Foxx lies.
QUOTE
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'. The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed
What is OBVIOUS to you, tends to be BS to most of the rest of us.
If "they don't come right out and say it" its because they don't have EVIDENCE to support it.
I would ask people to go to the document and look at these pictures in Chap 9:
16, 17, 35, 37, 49, 53, 57, 61, 71 and most importantly, 9-72.
Now notice the words NIST added to the picture that Foxx shows. The picture has been "enhanced by adjusting intensity levels".
They wanted to show the INSIDE of the building. To do so they had to LIGHTEN the picture. This causes already BRIGHT SPOTS in the picture to GO TO WHITE and FLARE.
If you go to the early pictures in the doc. like 9-35 you can see that this piece of the aluminum facade on column 254 is bent out, catching the sun where the normal colums do not.
here's pic 9-16 from Foxx's site that shows that the column is bright but not on fire.
Now if you go to picture 9-72, probably the best close up of this column and taken AFTER the supposed Foxx Thermite Bomb has gone off, you will see the column is still in pristine shape. This is also the best picture of the buckled facade and explains why it catches the light and the columns around it don't.
Foxx KNOWS all this, as he's looked at these pictures for years, but he's just trying to see what he can get by with.
I can almost set my watch based on how long before this SILLY idea is abandoned and the NEXT set of Foxx LIES are posted.
tick, tick, tick......
Arthur
newton, I will go further and say the complicity of the insurance companies show what we are up against.
Anyone that has had dealings even at a basic level with insurance companies will be aware of their reluctance to pay out if there is any question of a false claim being made.
Imagine if your claim was your house burnt down but your neighbours, the firemen, passers by etc were all saying explosives and forensic evidence from the scene suggested explosives, do you think you would be looking forward to rebuilding or your release?
Still, whats a few billion dollars? Its no loss what a friend gets eh.
Anyone that has had dealings even at a basic level with insurance companies will be aware of their reluctance to pay out if there is any question of a false claim being made.
Imagine if your claim was your house burnt down but your neighbours, the firemen, passers by etc were all saying explosives and forensic evidence from the scene suggested explosives, do you think you would be looking forward to rebuilding or your release?
Still, whats a few billion dollars? Its no loss what a friend gets eh.
Citigroup-AMEC 9/11 insurance fraud on Lloyd's of London?
by David Hawkins, Foundation Scholar, Cambridge University
Founder of the Citizen's Association of Forensic Economists at Hawks' CAFE
An open e-mail letter to:
David Hough, Executive Director
London Market Insurance Brokers' Committee --
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/EmailNews3Mar2006.html
by David Hawkins, Foundation Scholar, Cambridge University
Founder of the Citizen's Association of Forensic Economists at Hawks' CAFE
An open e-mail letter to:
David Hough, Executive Director
London Market Insurance Brokers' Committee --
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/EmailNews3Mar2006.html
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 02:46 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 10 2006, 03:37 AM)
What do you see in this photo...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig9_51.jpg
I find this to be a very interesting photo, lot's going on here. This is from the north face of WTC 2 taken about 16 - 17 minutes before the building fell apart.
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'.
The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed. If you download the pdf document you can blow up the photo to get a better look at various parts of the picture. I've blown it up to the point it begins to pixcelate {sp?}, and you can just make out some faint line that could be anything.
Here's NIST's enlargement from their original photo, and you can make out these 'hanging objects' better in this one...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig962.html
This is quite the clever smoke and mirrors trick. The old magician trick of keeping you busy looking 'over here' instead of 'over there' (where the real action is going on). Let me show you what I mean.
There are a half a dozen things I could point out in the photo, but for this post I'll just concentrate on the one column # 254 (floor 79).
I would guess that the majority of folks looking at this photo may very well look at the corner fire, see the flames and smoke, but never having questioned the official story will just see flames and smoke... not recognizing that this plume of white smoke should not be there. It is unusual smoke for a building fire. It's white. Thermite / thermate incendiaries give off a white smoke, but then maybe it was just one of the aircraft magnesium wheels that stuck to that column and caught fire. Let's zoom in a little...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg
The corner fire on the 81st floor is readily visible, easy to see the flames there, but is that smoke coming from there? NO. Maybe it's coming from some unseen fire behind that black smoke? NO. Oddly enough that column seems to be on fire, yet we see no fire at that area. That's easy to tell because if you look at the right side of the picture the other debris fire is clearly visible even though it is set back a distance from the columns themselves. Nope, no fire heating up that column to make it burn like that.
If we zoom in a little closer, it is easy to see that that particular column is heated to the point that it seems to be melting the aluminum, but it is the steel column itself which seems to be burning. Either that or the spandrel in that particular location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/003thermNF942.jpg
Yep, it certainly is glowing hot on that one particular column, but no fire that close to do that to the column.
Lot's of very unusual things going on in those fires.
Just thought some here would like to see these pics.
Cheers.
What do I see in Foxx's WRITE UP on this photo?
More Foxx lies.
What is OBVIOUS to you, tends to be BS to most of the rest of us.
If "they don't come right out and say it" its because they don't have EVIDENCE to support it.
I would ask people to go to the document and look at these pictures in Chap 9:
16, 17, 35, 37, 49, 53, 57, 61, 71 and most importantly, 9-72.
Now notice the words NIST added to the picture that Foxx shows. The picture has been "enhanced by adjusting intensity levels".
They wanted to show the INSIDE of the building. To do so they had to LIGHTEN the picture. This causes already BRIGHT SPOTS in the picture to GO TO WHITE and FLARE.
If you go to the early pictures in the doc. like 9-35 you can see that this piece of the aluminum facade on column 254 is bent out, catching the sun where the normal colums do not.
here's pic 9-16 from Foxx's site that shows that the column is bright but not on fire.
Now if you go to picture 9-72, probably the best close up of this column and taken AFTER the supposed Foxx Thermite Bomb has gone off, you will see the column is still in pristine shape. This is also the best picture of the buckled facade and explains why it catches the light and the columns around it don't.
Foxx KNOWS all this, as he's looked at these pictures for years, but he's just trying to see what he can get by with.
I can almost set my watch based on how long before this SILLY idea is abandoned and the NEXT set of Foxx LIES are posted.
tick, tick, tick......
Arthur
Darn, and I was hoping he would post those shots I requested
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig9_51.jpg
I find this to be a very interesting photo, lot's going on here. This is from the north face of WTC 2 taken about 16 - 17 minutes before the building fell apart.
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'.
The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed. If you download the pdf document you can blow up the photo to get a better look at various parts of the picture. I've blown it up to the point it begins to pixcelate {sp?}, and you can just make out some faint line that could be anything.
Here's NIST's enlargement from their original photo, and you can make out these 'hanging objects' better in this one...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig962.html
This is quite the clever smoke and mirrors trick. The old magician trick of keeping you busy looking 'over here' instead of 'over there' (where the real action is going on). Let me show you what I mean.
There are a half a dozen things I could point out in the photo, but for this post I'll just concentrate on the one column # 254 (floor 79).
I would guess that the majority of folks looking at this photo may very well look at the corner fire, see the flames and smoke, but never having questioned the official story will just see flames and smoke... not recognizing that this plume of white smoke should not be there. It is unusual smoke for a building fire. It's white. Thermite / thermate incendiaries give off a white smoke, but then maybe it was just one of the aircraft magnesium wheels that stuck to that column and caught fire. Let's zoom in a little...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg
The corner fire on the 81st floor is readily visible, easy to see the flames there, but is that smoke coming from there? NO. Maybe it's coming from some unseen fire behind that black smoke? NO. Oddly enough that column seems to be on fire, yet we see no fire at that area. That's easy to tell because if you look at the right side of the picture the other debris fire is clearly visible even though it is set back a distance from the columns themselves. Nope, no fire heating up that column to make it burn like that.
If we zoom in a little closer, it is easy to see that that particular column is heated to the point that it seems to be melting the aluminum, but it is the steel column itself which seems to be burning. Either that or the spandrel in that particular location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/003thermNF942.jpg
Yep, it certainly is glowing hot on that one particular column, but no fire that close to do that to the column.
Lot's of very unusual things going on in those fires.
Just thought some here would like to see these pics.
Cheers.
What do I see in Foxx's WRITE UP on this photo?
More Foxx lies.
QUOTE
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'. The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed
What is OBVIOUS to you, tends to be BS to most of the rest of us.
If "they don't come right out and say it" its because they don't have EVIDENCE to support it.
I would ask people to go to the document and look at these pictures in Chap 9:
16, 17, 35, 37, 49, 53, 57, 61, 71 and most importantly, 9-72.
Now notice the words NIST added to the picture that Foxx shows. The picture has been "enhanced by adjusting intensity levels".
They wanted to show the INSIDE of the building. To do so they had to LIGHTEN the picture. This causes already BRIGHT SPOTS in the picture to GO TO WHITE and FLARE.
If you go to the early pictures in the doc. like 9-35 you can see that this piece of the aluminum facade on column 254 is bent out, catching the sun where the normal colums do not.
here's pic 9-16 from Foxx's site that shows that the column is bright but not on fire.
Now if you go to picture 9-72, probably the best close up of this column and taken AFTER the supposed Foxx Thermite Bomb has gone off, you will see the column is still in pristine shape. This is also the best picture of the buckled facade and explains why it catches the light and the columns around it don't.
Foxx KNOWS all this, as he's looked at these pictures for years, but he's just trying to see what he can get by with.
I can almost set my watch based on how long before this SILLY idea is abandoned and the NEXT set of Foxx LIES are posted.
tick, tick, tick......
Arthur
Darn, and I was hoping he would post those shots I requested
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 02:46 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 10 2006, 03:37 AM)
What do you see in this photo...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig9_51.jpg
I find this to be a very interesting photo, lot's going on here. This is from the north face of WTC 2 taken about 16 - 17 minutes before the building fell apart.
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'.
The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed. If you download the pdf document you can blow up the photo to get a better look at various parts of the picture. I've blown it up to the point it begins to pixcelate {sp?}, and you can just make out some faint line that could be anything.
Here's NIST's enlargement from their original photo, and you can make out these 'hanging objects' better in this one...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig962.html
This is quite the clever smoke and mirrors trick. The old magician trick of keeping you busy looking 'over here' instead of 'over there' (where the real action is going on). Let me show you what I mean.
There are a half a dozen things I could point out in the photo, but for this post I'll just concentrate on the one column # 254 (floor 79).
I would guess that the majority of folks looking at this photo may very well look at the corner fire, see the flames and smoke, but never having questioned the official story will just see flames and smoke... not recognizing that this plume of white smoke should not be there. It is unusual smoke for a building fire. It's white. Thermite / thermate incendiaries give off a white smoke, but then maybe it was just one of the aircraft magnesium wheels that stuck to that column and caught fire. Let's zoom in a little...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg
The corner fire on the 81st floor is readily visible, easy to see the flames there, but is that smoke coming from there? NO. Maybe it's coming from some unseen fire behind that black smoke? NO. Oddly enough that column seems to be on fire, yet we see no fire at that area. That's easy to tell because if you look at the right side of the picture the other debris fire is clearly visible even though it is set back a distance from the columns themselves. Nope, no fire heating up that column to make it burn like that.
If we zoom in a little closer, it is easy to see that that particular column is heated to the point that it seems to be melting the aluminum, but it is the steel column itself which seems to be burning. Either that or the spandrel in that particular location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/003thermNF942.jpg
Yep, it certainly is glowing hot on that one particular column, but no fire that close to do that to the column.
Lot's of very unusual things going on in those fires.
Just thought some here would like to see these pics.
Cheers.
What do I see in Foxx's WRITE UP on this photo?
More Foxx lies.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig9_51.jpg
I find this to be a very interesting photo, lot's going on here. This is from the north face of WTC 2 taken about 16 - 17 minutes before the building fell apart.
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'.
The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area. It seems pretty obvious to me. What's wrong with these 'engineers'. It's a hole where all the windows were blown out in the initial impact. The obvious answer is that all the office fuel furnishings that were in that area were blown through the windows in the initial impact... therefore creating this nice big hole.
Anyway, the arrows are pointing to what NIST calls 'hanging objects'. They don't come right out and say it but the implication is that these 'hanging objects' are truss floors which have collapsed. If you download the pdf document you can blow up the photo to get a better look at various parts of the picture. I've blown it up to the point it begins to pixcelate {sp?}, and you can just make out some faint line that could be anything.
Here's NIST's enlargement from their original photo, and you can make out these 'hanging objects' better in this one...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig962.html
This is quite the clever smoke and mirrors trick. The old magician trick of keeping you busy looking 'over here' instead of 'over there' (where the real action is going on). Let me show you what I mean.
There are a half a dozen things I could point out in the photo, but for this post I'll just concentrate on the one column # 254 (floor 79).
I would guess that the majority of folks looking at this photo may very well look at the corner fire, see the flames and smoke, but never having questioned the official story will just see flames and smoke... not recognizing that this plume of white smoke should not be there. It is unusual smoke for a building fire. It's white. Thermite / thermate incendiaries give off a white smoke, but then maybe it was just one of the aircraft magnesium wheels that stuck to that column and caught fire. Let's zoom in a little...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg
The corner fire on the 81st floor is readily visible, easy to see the flames there, but is that smoke coming from there? NO. Maybe it's coming from some unseen fire behind that black smoke? NO. Oddly enough that column seems to be on fire, yet we see no fire at that area. That's easy to tell because if you look at the right side of the picture the other debris fire is clearly visible even though it is set back a distance from the columns themselves. Nope, no fire heating up that column to make it burn like that.
If we zoom in a little closer, it is easy to see that that particular column is heated to the point that it seems to be melting the aluminum, but it is the steel column itself which seems to be burning. Either that or the spandrel in that particular location.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/003thermNF942.jpg
Yep, it certainly is glowing hot on that one particular column, but no fire that close to do that to the column.
Lot's of very unusual things going on in those fires.
Just thought some here would like to see these pics.
Cheers.
What do I see in Foxx's WRITE UP on this photo?
More Foxx lies.
QUOTE
As can be seen by the caption NIST is trying to draw your eye with the big red arrows to the 'coldspot'. The 'coldspot' is an area which has NIST baffled... they just can't explain why nothing burned in this area.