There are a total of 4 shots taken by the photographer. You can clearly see this structure was in the center of the building. Debris was peeling away/falling infront of it. The site seems to be down now. I'll get more later.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 03:16 PM)
There are a total of 4 shots taken by the photographer. You can clearly see this structure was in the center of the building. Debris was peeling away/falling infront of it. The site seems to be down now. I'll get more later.
Thanks for the pic. I'd like to see the other three.
I think most of us can agree we're seeing remants of the core in both towers. The columns are seen better when the dust clears, as seen in the pic Commen posted.
Thanks for the pic. I'd like to see the other three.
I think most of us can agree we're seeing remants of the core in both towers. The columns are seen better when the dust clears, as seen in the pic Commen posted.
Looks like there actually was a 45 record spindle, one that lasted until at least a few seconds after the end of the collapse of the south tower. That remnant core was obviously still there when the building was collapsing. Interesting. Amazing how easily it must have been for floors to detach from that core. If they had been secured very well, they would have likely pulled the core apart and we wouldn't see such a remnant.. Much the same for all those large sections of bare perimeter wall near the ground levels.
The core may still have been around during the collapse of the north tower too. Maybe it just collapsed sooner before the dust settled and we never had a chance to see it. We did see a portion of it when the dust started to clear but it was not as complete as that pic of the remnant core of the south tower.
The core may still have been around during the collapse of the north tower too. Maybe it just collapsed sooner before the dust settled and we never had a chance to see it. We did see a portion of it when the dust started to clear but it was not as complete as that pic of the remnant core of the south tower.
Any of these people friends of yours, RC?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2587661313510275113
What a f|_|cked-up world.
G-day, mate, and please give my regards to all the wackos down-under (now there's a country in need of a good reverse-flush).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2587661313510275113
What a f|_|cked-up world.
G-day, mate, and please give my regards to all the wackos down-under (now there's a country in need of a good reverse-flush).
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 07:47 AM)
Looks like there actually was a 45 record spindle, one that lasted until at least a few seconds after the end of the collapse of the south tower. That remnant core was obviously still there when the building was collapsing. Interesting. Amazing how easily it must have been for floors to detach from that core. If they had been secured very well, they would have likely pulled the core apart and we wouldn't see such a remnant.. Much the same for all those large sections of bare perimeter wall near the ground levels.
The core may still have been around during the collapse of the north tower too. Maybe it just collapsed sooner before the dust settled and we never had a chance to see it. We did see a portion of it when the dust started to clear but it was not as complete as that pic of the remnant core of the south tower.
If the floors did not buckle the core columns, what caused the core to collapse?
The core may still have been around during the collapse of the north tower too. Maybe it just collapsed sooner before the dust settled and we never had a chance to see it. We did see a portion of it when the dust started to clear but it was not as complete as that pic of the remnant core of the south tower.
If the floors did not buckle the core columns, what caused the core to collapse?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 11 2006, 04:04 PM)
If the floors did not buckle the core columns, what caused the core to collapse?
Good question. Why do you keep asking me the hard questions?
It did stand by itself but not for long. The spire/core on the north tower oscillated and fell apart. Not enough rigidity left since it no longer had the floors and perimeter along with it for rigidity. If I can find video of the south core remnant, perhaps we can see that it too oscillated and broke apart.
I can't say that no part of the core was damaged when the floors detached. It looks pretty obvious, though, that a good length of the core in the south tower managed to survive briefly, roughly half the height of the tower at the time when it could be seen through the dust.
A quarter mile high relatively skinny core doesn't seem to have a good chance of surviving by itself. Maybe someone can model such a structure and see how it behaves by itself.
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 11 2006, 04:01 PM)
Any of these people friends of yours, RC?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2587661313510275113
What a f|_|cked-up world.
G-day, mate, and please give my regards to all the wackos down-under (now there's a country in need of a good reverse-flush).
Another failed attempt at insult. You and Jamie have the same mother by any chance?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2587661313510275113
What a f|_|cked-up world.
G-day, mate, and please give my regards to all the wackos down-under (now there's a country in need of a good reverse-flush).
Another failed attempt at insult. You and Jamie have the same mother by any chance?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 03:16 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 10:36 AM)
But as I've said, there is no corner perimeter column which could stand some ten stories by it's lonesome. All the columns were connected in threes except the corner which I believe was connected at an angle in twos.
So this 10 story column could not be a perimeter column.
Note the very thin caddy cornered columns during construction with the H lying on it's side pattern.
And when you put the above together with this..
...
It's a done deal..
I'm not sure of the corner construction detail.
But if you look at the picture (described as H's on their side)
You will notice that the Perimeter column trees that meet at the corner have FOUR columns.
You will also notice that the relative sizes of the vertical to horizontal pieces of the Perimeter corner don't match the picture of the collapse.
Also the CROSS piece in the "H" is put in afterward (its in every other floor) but you can see that the top "H" does not yet have its "cross" piece.
In any case, I don't believe what we are seeing in that picture is the Perimeter Corner as I find it extremly unlikely that ALL of the Perimeter Trees that would have been attached could be stripped from that "H" corner column and not distort it or tear it apart.
Arthur
there's that, and also the relative thickness of the columns vs the cross braces.
i would say those are box columns and maybe stairwells. stairwells would add extra non-perpendicular bracing, giving that spire the strength to stand on it's own.
If the floors did not buckle the core columns, what caused the core to collapse?
Good question. Why do you keep asking me the hard questions?
It did stand by itself but not for long. The spire/core on the north tower oscillated and fell apart. Not enough rigidity left since it no longer had the floors and perimeter along with it for rigidity. If I can find video of the south core remnant, perhaps we can see that it too oscillated and broke apart.
I can't say that no part of the core was damaged when the floors detached. It looks pretty obvious, though, that a good length of the core in the south tower managed to survive briefly, roughly half the height of the tower at the time when it could be seen through the dust.
A quarter mile high relatively skinny core doesn't seem to have a good chance of surviving by itself. Maybe someone can model such a structure and see how it behaves by itself.
The reason I ask is the core had a reinforced concert floor, plus large girders supporting the columns. The dimensions of the core 87 feet by 133 feet. The core and perimeter walls were built at the same time to keep the floors as level as possible not the disinformation that it could not stand on its own. Therefore, even if the imposable pancake theory were true the core would have remained standing until demolition or the next hurricane hit New York.
So this 10 story column could not be a perimeter column.
Note the very thin caddy cornered columns during construction with the H lying on it's side pattern.
And when you put the above together with this..
...
It's a done deal..
I'm not sure of the corner construction detail.
But if you look at the picture (described as H's on their side)
You will notice that the Perimeter column trees that meet at the corner have FOUR columns.
You will also notice that the relative sizes of the vertical to horizontal pieces of the Perimeter corner don't match the picture of the collapse.
Also the CROSS piece in the "H" is put in afterward (its in every other floor) but you can see that the top "H" does not yet have its "cross" piece.
In any case, I don't believe what we are seeing in that picture is the Perimeter Corner as I find it extremly unlikely that ALL of the Perimeter Trees that would have been attached could be stripped from that "H" corner column and not distort it or tear it apart.
Arthur
there's that, and also the relative thickness of the columns vs the cross braces.
i would say those are box columns and maybe stairwells. stairwells would add extra non-perpendicular bracing, giving that spire the strength to stand on it's own.
It seems interesting that such a length of core of the south tower managed to survive. The top of the building tilted by a fairly large angle and fell. You would think some of that would have crushed the core below since its axis wasn't concentric with the lower part of the building. The floors on the tilted upper section got destroyed as it fell. That off-axis fall would have likely damaged the upper half of the core. By the time the collapse reached the point at half the height of the building, that off-axis upper section may have been completely destroyed and was no longer able to significantly damage the lower half of the core.
I don't know for sure. These are just guesses. The core got thicker and stronger on the way down also.
I don't know for sure. These are just guesses. The core got thicker and stronger on the way down also.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 08:15 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 11 2006, 04:04 PM)
If the floors did not buckle the core columns, what caused the core to collapse?
Good question. Why do you keep asking me the hard questions?
It did stand by itself but not for long. The spire/core on the north tower oscillated and fell apart. Not enough rigidity left since it no longer had the floors and perimeter along with it for rigidity. If I can find video of the south core remnant, perhaps we can see that it too oscillated and broke apart.
I can't say that no part of the core was damaged when the floors detached. It looks pretty obvious, though, that a good length of the core in the south tower managed to survive briefly, roughly half the height of the tower at the time when it could be seen through the dust.
A quarter mile high relatively skinny core doesn't seem to have a good chance of surviving by itself. Maybe someone can model such a structure and see how it behaves by itself.
The reason I ask is the core had a reinforced concert floor, plus large girders supporting the columns. The dimensions of the core 87 feet by 133 feet. The core and perimeter walls were built at the same time to keep the floors as level as possible not the disinformation that it could not stand on its own. Therefore, even if the imposable pancake theory were true the core would have remained standing until demolition or the next hurricane hit New York.
Well, we don't know if the entire cross-section of the core survived in the south tower. That may only be a part of it. We need an aerial pic. If it were the entire cross-section, it would have more rigidity.
The north core remnant appeared more like a wall than a box, so it oscillated easily and broke apart.
That's why I want to review videos of the south tower to see what happened.
The north core remnant appeared more like a wall than a box, so it oscillated easily and broke apart.
That's why I want to review videos of the south tower to see what happened.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 11 2006, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 07:47 AM)
Looks like there actually was a 45 record spindle, one that lasted until at least a few seconds after the end of the collapse of the south tower. That remnant core was obviously still there when the building was collapsing. Interesting. Amazing how easily it must have been for floors to detach from that core. If they had been secured very well, they would have likely pulled the core apart and we wouldn't see such a remnant.. Much the same for all those large sections of bare perimeter wall near the ground levels.
The core may still have been around during the collapse of the north tower too. Maybe it just collapsed sooner before the dust settled and we never had a chance to see it. We did see a portion of it when the dust started to clear but it was not as complete as that pic of the remnant core of the south tower.
If the floors did not buckle the core columns, what caused the core to collapse?
\ <-force of falling debris-> | >-Core Columns<-| <-force of falling debris-> /
|\Floors Collapsing ahead/ | >-Core Columns<-| \Floors Collapsing ahead /|
| <-Air compressing PSI-> | >-Core Columns<-| <-Air compressing PSI-> |
The force of falling debris behind the collapsing floors would have to go around the yet collapsing floors. I would argue there is energy from the collapse pushing inward toward the core helping hold the core together.
There would be no buckling on the core under the collapse floor. Why would there be? The floors sheared DOWN, not out.
The force of falling debris behind the collapsing floors would have to go around the yet collapsing floors. I would argue there is energy from the collapse pushing inward toward the core helping hold the core together.
There would be no buckling on the core under the collapse floor. Why would there be? The floors sheared DOWN, not out.
The core may have had vibrational energy stored up in it from impacts during the collapse. Maybe that could cause it to oscillate and break up. The way it would vibrate would change as the collapse commenced, from a small unsupported length free to oscillate to a very long one when the collapse was complete.
The video of the north tower core remnant shows that it was oscillating when it broke up. Even that may be enough to break bolts and splices. The wall simply bending slightly to one side may have broken the bolts.
The force of falling debris behind the collapsing floors would have to go around the yet collapsing floors. I would argue there is energy from the collapse pushing inward toward the core helping hold the core together.
There would be no buckling on the core under the collapse floor. Why would there be? The floors sheared DOWN, not out.
The core may have had vibrational energy stored up in it from impacts during the collapse. Maybe that could cause it to oscillate and break up. The way it would vibrate would change as the collapse commenced, from a small unsupported length free to oscillate to a very long one when the collapse was complete.
The video of the north tower core remnant shows that it was oscillating when it broke up. Even that may be enough to break bolts and splices. The wall simply bending slightly to one side may have broken the bolts.
I could easly see the core being stressed during collapse then falling apart as RC said, by the bottom columns being leveraged over. Once that bad boy gets moving in one direction I don't think it could have stopped. And if the wind could blow the whole building to one side imagine what a collapse could do to just the core. A weakened core at that...
is that a bird? a plane? super reverse gravity?
I'm not sure what connection to any floor could stop the weight of the floors above MF. Think about it. What was that, over 30 floors? 35 maybe?
Agree. The dynamic loads must have been staggering. If the connections would have been very strong, I suppose the floors would have taken the core down with it. The collapse may still have gone global, but you probably wouldn't see a standing core at the end. The rubble probably would have had more pieces of bent metal as opposed to a tinker toy type of rubble, and the collapse would have been less kinetic and chaotic.
The force of falling debris behind the collapsing floors would have to go around the yet collapsing floors. I would argue there is energy from the collapse pushing inward toward the core helping hold the core together.
There would be no buckling on the core under the collapse floor. Why would there be? The floors sheared DOWN, not out.
The core may have had vibrational energy stored up in it from impacts during the collapse. Maybe that could cause it to oscillate and break up. The way it would vibrate would change as the collapse commenced, from a small unsupported length free to oscillate to a very long one when the collapse was complete.
The video of the north tower core remnant shows that it was oscillating when it broke up. Even that may be enough to break bolts and splices. The wall simply bending slightly to one side may have broken the bolts.
I could easly see the core being stressed during collapse then falling apart as RC said, by the bottom columns being leveraged over. Once that bad boy gets moving in one direction I don't think it could have stopped. And if the wind could blow the whole building to one side imagine what a collapse could do to just the core.
and yet, it begins to tip, and then falls straight down. really quickly.
when you watch the rick siegel video of it, you can see a puff of dust(a 'puff' which is probably a story high) which initiates the tipping.
i think perhaps the above picture of the spire shows the same explosion.
is that a bird? a plane? super reverse gravity?
What the hell are you talking about. Are you announcing your entrance?
Your looking at about the 49th to 50 story. The debris above it is still well below the 110th story of the tower.
No. it's not your upside down explosion..
The core may still have been around during the collapse of the north tower too. Maybe it just collapsed sooner before the dust settled and we never had a chance to see it. We did see a portion of it when the dust started to clear but it was not as complete as that pic of the remnant core of the south tower.
If the floors did not buckle the core columns, what caused the core to collapse?
\ <-force of falling debris-> | >-Core Columns<-| <-force of falling debris-> /
|\Floors Collapsing ahead/ | >-Core Columns<-| \Floors Collapsing ahead /|
| <-Air compressing PSI-> | >-Core Columns<-| <-Air compressing PSI-> |
The force of falling debris behind the collapsing floors would have to go around the yet collapsing floors. I would argue there is energy from the collapse pushing inward toward the core helping hold the core together.
There would be no buckling on the core under the collapse floor. Why would there be? The floors sheared DOWN, not out.
It's also interesting that the spire on the north tower appears to be a little taller than the mechanical floors, as seem from picture overlapping. If that spire was in fact attached to a mechanical floor, that connection failed easily enough that the mechanical floor didn't bring the spire down with it. That spire looked pretty thick. You would almost expect that it was connected to the mechanical floors. The connections of the mechanical floors to the core may not have been all that strong either. Then again, there was only that one spire left higher than the mechanical floors and we can't be sure if it was connected to a mechanical floor.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 04:53 PM)
It's also interesting that the spire on the north tower appears to be a little taller than the mechanical floors, as seem from picture overlapping. If that spire was in fact attached to a mechanical floor, that connection failed easily enough that the mechanical floor didn't bring the spire down with it. That spire looked pretty thick. You would almost expect that it was connected to the mechanical floors. The connections of the mechanical floors to the core may not have been all that strong either. Then again, there was only that one spire left higher than the mechanical floors.
I'm not sure what connection to any floor could stop the weight of the floors above MF. Think about it. What was that, over 30 floors? 35 maybe?
I'm not sure what connection to any floor could stop the weight of the floors above MF. Think about it. What was that, over 30 floors? 35 maybe?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 04:52 PM)
The force of falling debris behind the collapsing floors would have to go around the yet collapsing floors. I would argue there is energy from the collapse pushing inward toward the core helping hold the core together.
There would be no buckling on the core under the collapse floor. Why would there be? The floors sheared DOWN, not out.
The core may have had vibrational energy stored up in it from impacts during the collapse. Maybe that could cause it to oscillate and break up. The way it would vibrate would change as the collapse commenced, from a small unsupported length free to oscillate to a very long one when the collapse was complete.
The video of the north tower core remnant shows that it was oscillating when it broke up. Even that may be enough to break bolts and splices. The wall simply bending slightly to one side may have broken the bolts.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 04:52 PM)
The force of falling debris behind the collapsing floors would have to go around the yet collapsing floors. I would argue there is energy from the collapse pushing inward toward the core helping hold the core together.
There would be no buckling on the core under the collapse floor. Why would there be? The floors sheared DOWN, not out.
The core may have had vibrational energy stored up in it from impacts during the collapse. Maybe that could cause it to oscillate and break up. The way it would vibrate would change as the collapse commenced, from a small unsupported length free to oscillate to a very long one when the collapse was complete.
The video of the north tower core remnant shows that it was oscillating when it broke up. Even that may be enough to break bolts and splices. The wall simply bending slightly to one side may have broken the bolts.
I could easly see the core being stressed during collapse then falling apart as RC said, by the bottom columns being leveraged over. Once that bad boy gets moving in one direction I don't think it could have stopped. And if the wind could blow the whole building to one side imagine what a collapse could do to just the core. A weakened core at that...
is that a bird? a plane? super reverse gravity?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 04:58 PM)
I'm not sure what connection to any floor could stop the weight of the floors above MF. Think about it. What was that, over 30 floors? 35 maybe?
Agree. The dynamic loads must have been staggering. If the connections would have been very strong, I suppose the floors would have taken the core down with it. The collapse may still have gone global, but you probably wouldn't see a standing core at the end. The rubble probably would have had more pieces of bent metal as opposed to a tinker toy type of rubble, and the collapse would have been less kinetic and chaotic.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 05:10 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 04:52 PM)
The force of falling debris behind the collapsing floors would have to go around the yet collapsing floors. I would argue there is energy from the collapse pushing inward toward the core helping hold the core together.
There would be no buckling on the core under the collapse floor. Why would there be? The floors sheared DOWN, not out.
The core may have had vibrational energy stored up in it from impacts during the collapse. Maybe that could cause it to oscillate and break up. The way it would vibrate would change as the collapse commenced, from a small unsupported length free to oscillate to a very long one when the collapse was complete.
The video of the north tower core remnant shows that it was oscillating when it broke up. Even that may be enough to break bolts and splices. The wall simply bending slightly to one side may have broken the bolts.
I could easly see the core being stressed during collapse then falling apart as RC said, by the bottom columns being leveraged over. Once that bad boy gets moving in one direction I don't think it could have stopped. And if the wind could blow the whole building to one side imagine what a collapse could do to just the core.
and yet, it begins to tip, and then falls straight down. really quickly.
when you watch the rick siegel video of it, you can see a puff of dust(a 'puff' which is probably a story high) which initiates the tipping.
i think perhaps the above picture of the spire shows the same explosion.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 05:11 PM)
is that a bird? a plane? super reverse gravity?
What the hell are you talking about. Are you announcing your entrance?
Your looking at about the 49th to 50 story. The debris above it is still well below the 110th story of the tower.
No. it's not your upside down explosion..
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 11 2006, 12:01 PM)
Any of these people friends of yours, RC?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2587661313510275113
What a f|_|cked-up world.
G-day, mate, and please give my regards to all the wackos down-under (now there's a country in need of a good reverse-flush).
While the guy asking the questions is Australian, he's in America.
The real goof is he has Australia labeled as North Korea and none of these idiots have a clue.
Arthur
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2587661313510275113
What a f|_|cked-up world.
G-day, mate, and please give my regards to all the wackos down-under (now there's a country in need of a good reverse-flush).
While the guy asking the questions is Australian, he's in America.
The real goof is he has Australia labeled as North Korea and none of these idiots have a clue.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 05:17 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 11 2006, 12:01 PM)
Any of these people friends of yours, RC?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2587661313510275113
What a f|_|cked-up world.
G-day, mate, and please give my regards to all the wackos down-under (now there's a country in need of a good reverse-flush).
While the guy asking the questions is Australian, he's in America.
The real goof is he has Australia labeled as North Korea and none of these idiots have a clue.
Arthur
What's funny is Mel thought Australians were considered south-eastern. Then he trys to insult RC to cover for his stupidity. HEHEHE
is that a bird? a plane? super reverse gravity?
What the hell are you talking about. Are you announcing your entrance?
Your looking at about the 49th to 50 story. The debris above it is still well below the 110th story of the tower.
No. it's not your upside down explosion..
i bet the 'CTers' will see it.
there is debris being ejected upwards and to the left. the comet trails show the direction and the radial pattern sugeests the source, and there is even a big chunk(the 'bird' or 'superman') flying upwards and away.
and, like i said, you can see it on the 911eyewitness video from another angle.
"truth", "justice" and the "american way".....
next in the war on terror.....
france
canada
brazil
iran
north korea(australia, lol)
etfuttincetera
Sorry, I can't open the file. Can you transcribe it? And where do you get the name Mark Wingate.
Can anyone else have a look at this ppt file and give me a rundown on it?
Thanks
Sorry, I can't open the file. Can you transcribe it? And where do you get the name Mark Wingate.
Foxx, it is the name at the start of the Power Point presentation.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
Sorry, I can't open the file. Can you transcribe it? And where do you get the name Mark Wingate.
Foxx, it is the name at the start of the Power Point presentation.
Thanks reasonwhy... anything interesting there? Does it mention times places buildings etc?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2587661313510275113
What a f|_|cked-up world.
G-day, mate, and please give my regards to all the wackos down-under (now there's a country in need of a good reverse-flush).
While the guy asking the questions is Australian, he's in America.
The real goof is he has Australia labeled as North Korea and none of these idiots have a clue.
Arthur
What's funny is Mel thought Australians were considered south-eastern. Then he trys to insult RC to cover for his stupidity. HEHEHE
The puffs are initiated by the buckling. Part of the puff is the fireproofing covering the perimeter columns being crushed. Some is drywall from the offices. The puffs have a light color on the lower half of the buckled east side as the collapse starts. The same dust above the buckled zone has a darker color because the soot from the fires above is mixed in with it.
One the left side of the pic is part of the core bending over the left. It almost looks like debris being propelled skyward but it isn't. There appears to be a grid-like structure just visible.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 05:17 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 05:11 PM)
is that a bird? a plane? super reverse gravity?
What the hell are you talking about. Are you announcing your entrance?
Your looking at about the 49th to 50 story. The debris above it is still well below the 110th story of the tower.
No. it's not your upside down explosion..
i bet the 'CTers' will see it.
there is debris being ejected upwards and to the left. the comet trails show the direction and the radial pattern sugeests the source, and there is even a big chunk(the 'bird' or 'superman') flying upwards and away.
and, like i said, you can see it on the 911eyewitness video from another angle.
"truth", "justice" and the "american way".....
next in the war on terror.....
france
canada
brazil
iran
north korea(australia, lol)
etfuttincetera
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 05:23 PM)
The puffs are initiated by the buckling. Part of the puff is the fireproofing covering the perimeter columns being crushed. Some is drywall from the offices. The puffs have a light color on the lower half of the buckled east side as the collapse starts. The same dust above the buckled zone has a darker color because the soot from the fires above is mixed in with it.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
I have not visited the forum without at least 3 disinformation team members present( Arthur,commen scence, and Shagster). Shagster after your last comments I have to add you to the team. You certainly are not trying to figure out the real reason for the collapse.
Oscillations coursing bolts to fail from stored energy from the collapse?
Agreeing with Commen Scene who doesn’t even understand the concept of torque?
Disregarding the mechanical floors and figuring the upper attached floors could somehow pancake on the lower floors?
Oscillations coursing bolts to fail from stored energy from the collapse?
Agreeing with Commen Scene who doesn’t even understand the concept of torque?
Disregarding the mechanical floors and figuring the upper attached floors could somehow pancake on the lower floors?
QUOTE
by Arthur
As for the CENAN - PAO thingy.
You are WAY too Internet Savey to be thinking this was the OFFICIAL CENAN web site. It it was I believe it would end with .GOV. Look at the site, notice the "postcards" link, the link to "col o dowds mission", the Politics, the "as seen on CNN" stuff. Clearly NOT an official site. (way to UN-political correct)
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Foxx, you'll actually like this, go to the site.
http://army.firststrike.net/index.htm
and click on Damage Assessment
Takes you on a PPT slide show of the damage to the (in your mind) infamous WFC 1.
Below is a direct link to it.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
As for the CENAN - PAO thingy.
You are WAY too Internet Savey to be thinking this was the OFFICIAL CENAN web site. It it was I believe it would end with .GOV. Look at the site, notice the "postcards" link, the link to "col o dowds mission", the Politics, the "as seen on CNN" stuff. Clearly NOT an official site. (way to UN-political correct)
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Foxx, you'll actually like this, go to the site.
http://army.firststrike.net/index.htm
and click on Damage Assessment
Takes you on a PPT slide show of the damage to the (in your mind) infamous WFC 1.
Below is a direct link to it.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
Sorry, I can't open the file. Can you transcribe it? And where do you get the name Mark Wingate.
Can anyone else have a look at this ppt file and give me a rundown on it?
Thanks
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 11 2006, 10:11 AM)
QUOTE
by Arthur
As for the CENAN - PAO thingy.
You are WAY too Internet Savey to be thinking this was the OFFICIAL CENAN web site. It it was I believe it would end with .GOV. Look at the site, notice the "postcards" link, the link to "col o dowds mission", the Politics, the "as seen on CNN" stuff. Clearly NOT an official site. (way to UN-political correct)
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Foxx, you'll actually like this, go to the site.
http://army.firststrike.net/index.htm
and click on Damage Assessment
Takes you on a PPT slide show of the damage to the (in your mind) infamous WFC 1.
Below is a direct link to it.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
As for the CENAN - PAO thingy.
You are WAY too Internet Savey to be thinking this was the OFFICIAL CENAN web site. It it was I believe it would end with .GOV. Look at the site, notice the "postcards" link, the link to "col o dowds mission", the Politics, the "as seen on CNN" stuff. Clearly NOT an official site. (way to UN-political correct)
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Foxx, you'll actually like this, go to the site.
http://army.firststrike.net/index.htm
and click on Damage Assessment
Takes you on a PPT slide show of the damage to the (in your mind) infamous WFC 1.
Below is a direct link to it.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
Sorry, I can't open the file. Can you transcribe it? And where do you get the name Mark Wingate.
Foxx, it is the name at the start of the Power Point presentation.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 11 2006, 06:14 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 11 2006, 10:11 AM)
QUOTE
by Arthur
As for the CENAN - PAO thingy.
You are WAY too Internet Savey to be thinking this was the OFFICIAL CENAN web site. It it was I believe it would end with .GOV. Look at the site, notice the "postcards" link, the link to "col o dowds mission", the Politics, the "as seen on CNN" stuff. Clearly NOT an official site. (way to UN-political correct)
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Foxx, you'll actually like this, go to the site.
http://army.firststrike.net/index.htm
and click on Damage Assessment
Takes you on a PPT slide show of the damage to the (in your mind) infamous WFC 1.
Below is a direct link to it.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
As for the CENAN - PAO thingy.
You are WAY too Internet Savey to be thinking this was the OFFICIAL CENAN web site. It it was I believe it would end with .GOV. Look at the site, notice the "postcards" link, the link to "col o dowds mission", the Politics, the "as seen on CNN" stuff. Clearly NOT an official site. (way to UN-political correct)
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Foxx, you'll actually like this, go to the site.
http://army.firststrike.net/index.htm
and click on Damage Assessment
Takes you on a PPT slide show of the damage to the (in your mind) infamous WFC 1.
Below is a direct link to it.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
Sorry, I can't open the file. Can you transcribe it? And where do you get the name Mark Wingate.
Foxx, it is the name at the start of the Power Point presentation.
Thanks reasonwhy... anything interesting there? Does it mention times places buildings etc?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 11 2006, 05:26 AM)
I have to agree with you on that score metamars. If the photo were true we should have seen such a situation from other perspectives.
...
I contacted the regional offices of the army corps of engineers to get a contact person of the CENAN PAO website where the photo was found. I didn't mention the photo in that correspondence, just asked for contact name of the CENAN PAO division.
Very interesting exchange of email there. The regional public affairs officer had no hesitation in providing me that address... got an answer in less than an hour. So I emailed the contact at CENAN PAO and asked if he could tell me anything about this photo, like where it was located at WTC, which building etc.
It wasn't long before I got a response from that army officer either. Just a couple of sentences... very strange!... He claimed it wasn't their website so he had NO INFORMATION. end of story ... good bye.
Gee you americans make lousy liars
Not very bright either... I guess that's why they call military intelligence an oxymoron.
I checked the website out at the Internet Archives - and there it was - ever since 1998. The earlier versions clearly show that the website is run by the US army corps of engineers NY div.
Course I guess that probably shows I'm not very bright either... I should have asked about one of the other photos first, to corner him into admitting that the photo was in their possession.
I wonder why he outright lied, when I asked about that photo?
If the photo WERE true????
If someone was going to FAKE a photo, why fake one like that?????
So you have good insight into why somebody would produce one type of fake as opposed to another, do you? Why don't you demonstrate your keen insight by actually posting your "faker motivation theory"?
You don't need to know the motivation for fakery to expose it'd dubious products. If you imply otherwise, then you first.
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is.
Your PARANOIA knows no bounds.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
Why do you think there HAD to be videos?
Are you serious? THE HEIGHT OF THE FAKE CORE/PERIMETER (TAKE YOUR PICK, SINCE IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF IT'S A FAKE) IS ABOUT HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWERS!! AND THE VIDEOS SOMEHOW MISSED IT? ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THAT THERE WERE VIDEOS OF THE WTC COLLAPSES?
Even you wouldn't be that foolish. So explain to us how there's "photos" of a section of a tower about 500 feet tall, but we can't see it in any of the videos.
Frankly, I'm surprised that even a pope like yourself would attempt such a bamboozling.
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work?
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
The event was over an hour old by then, how many people up that morning and who had video cameras had exhausted either tape and/or batteries by then?
A reasonable question. The implied answer - "none" - is too silly to be taken seriously.
Need I also point out that all the video-graphers and photographers who got tired and/or bored of photographing/videographic the buildings with the "raging" smoke, managed to muster the strength and interest to start filming again once the buildings began to collapse??
For the collapse to have progressed to the point indicated in the fake photo implies that there were at least 7 seconds to point and shoot. Or to remove from a carrying case, point and shoot.
Again, just more paranoia.
Rather, more of examples of your often shoddy reasoning and desire to paint your opponents as "paranoid", which is one of your favorite propagandistic themes.
Sorry, I can't open the file. Can you transcribe it? And where do you get the name Mark Wingate.
Foxx, it is the name at the start of the Power Point presentation.
Thanks reasonwhy... anything interesting there? Does it mention times places buildings etc?
It shows the perimeter wall that hit another building ( from inside the other building). For some reason he does not document anything (only pictures ).
World Trade Center Event
Mark Wingate
Friday October 5, 2001
The end
(This is the only text in presentation)
One of the Photos:
Thanks reasonwhy for your help on that PPT doc.
Re: This Image...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten002sm.jpg
The Internet Archive... http://www.archive.org/ is like a spider crawling the web, taking snapshots of webpages it sees on a particular date, and caching that 'snapshot'. If you are looking for a newstory or other information, and the link is dead - you can plug the URL into the 'Wayback Machine' and you may be able to retrieve the information through that means... (That is IF the spider happened to crawl past while the story or information was on the web).
So I plugged in the URL to look up the CENAN PAO site and it's history.
History of site... http://army.firststrike.net/ from Internet Archives.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://army.firststrike.net/
Check out the date Feb 05, 2001...
http://web.archive.org/web/20010205163200/...irststrike.net/
and click the side menu that says Who We Are...
Does it say...
The New York District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers...tadatada.
Seems to me that this page has been set up by someone in the New York District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Here is the same page as of Sept 25 2004...
http://web.archive.org/web/20040925182052/...irststrike.net/
Does it look like the same CENAN PAO page we have been discussing?
So... It seems arthur is probably right that someone in the CENAN PAO has set up their own private website and posted photos of the WTC damages to that site. I wish he had put a contact listing on the page.
This photo certainly has me intrigued. Anyone have any ideas how to track down this Wingate?
I've tried every method I know. The domain name is not registered so that's a dead end.
Thanks reasonwhy for your help on that PPT doc.
Re: This Image...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten002sm.jpg
The Internet Archive... http://www.archive.org/ is like a spider crawling the web, taking snapshots of webpages it sees on a particular date, and caching that 'snapshot'. If you are looking for a newstory or other information, and the link is dead - you can plug the URL into the 'Wayback Machine' and you may be able to retrieve the information through that means... (That is IF the spider happened to crawl past while the story or information was on the web).
So I plugged in the URL to look up the CENAN PAO site and it's history.
History of site... http://army.firststrike.net/ from Internet Archives.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://army.firststrike.net/
Check out the date Feb 05, 2001...
http://web.archive.org/web/20010205163200/...irststrike.net/
and click the side menu that says Who We Are...
Does it say...
The New York District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers...tadatada.
Seems to me that this page has been set up by someone in the New York District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Here is the same page as of Sept 25 2004...
http://web.archive.org/web/20040925182052/...irststrike.net/
Does it look like the same CENAN PAO page we have been discussing?
So... It seems arthur is probably right that someone in the CENAN PAO has set up their own private website and posted photos of the WTC damages to that site. I wish he had put a contact listing on the page.
This photo certainly has me intrigued. Anyone have any ideas how to track down this Wingate?
I've tried every method I know. The domain name is not registered so that's a dead end.
I think this is him:
Contact:
Mark Wingate
CEMVN-PM-W
New Orleans, LA
504-862-2512
Mark.R.Wingate@mvn02.usace.army.mil
Page last updated: July 29, 2005
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pd/projsasp/...t.asp?Where=PAS
...
I contacted the regional offices of the army corps of engineers to get a contact person of the CENAN PAO website where the photo was found. I didn't mention the photo in that correspondence, just asked for contact name of the CENAN PAO division.
Very interesting exchange of email there. The regional public affairs officer had no hesitation in providing me that address... got an answer in less than an hour. So I emailed the contact at CENAN PAO and asked if he could tell me anything about this photo, like where it was located at WTC, which building etc.
It wasn't long before I got a response from that army officer either. Just a couple of sentences... very strange!... He claimed it wasn't their website so he had NO INFORMATION. end of story ... good bye.
Gee you americans make lousy liars
Not very bright either... I guess that's why they call military intelligence an oxymoron.
I checked the website out at the Internet Archives - and there it was - ever since 1998. The earlier versions clearly show that the website is run by the US army corps of engineers NY div.
Course I guess that probably shows I'm not very bright either... I should have asked about one of the other photos first, to corner him into admitting that the photo was in their possession.
I wonder why he outright lied, when I asked about that photo?
If the photo WERE true????
If someone was going to FAKE a photo, why fake one like that?????
So you have good insight into why somebody would produce one type of fake as opposed to another, do you? Why don't you demonstrate your keen insight by actually posting your "faker motivation theory"?
You don't need to know the motivation for fakery to expose it'd dubious products. If you imply otherwise, then you first.
QUOTE
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is.
Your PARANOIA knows no bounds.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is. Your PARANOIA knows no bounds. |
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
Why do you think there HAD to be videos?
Are you serious? THE HEIGHT OF THE FAKE CORE/PERIMETER (TAKE YOUR PICK, SINCE IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF IT'S A FAKE) IS ABOUT HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWERS!! AND THE VIDEOS SOMEHOW MISSED IT? ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THAT THERE WERE VIDEOS OF THE WTC COLLAPSES?
Even you wouldn't be that foolish. So explain to us how there's "photos" of a section of a tower about 500 feet tall, but we can't see it in any of the videos.
Frankly, I'm surprised that even a pope like yourself would attempt such a bamboozling.
QUOTE
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work?
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work? |
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
The event was over an hour old by then, how many people up that morning and who had video cameras had exhausted either tape and/or batteries by then?
A reasonable question. The implied answer - "none" - is too silly to be taken seriously.
Need I also point out that all the video-graphers and photographers who got tired and/or bored of photographing/videographic the buildings with the "raging" smoke, managed to muster the strength and interest to start filming again once the buildings began to collapse??
For the collapse to have progressed to the point indicated in the fake photo implies that there were at least 7 seconds to point and shoot. Or to remove from a carrying case, point and shoot.
QUOTE
Again, just more paranoia.
Rather, more of examples of your often shoddy reasoning and desire to paint your opponents as "paranoid", which is one of your favorite propagandistic themes.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 11 2006, 10:16 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 11 2006, 06:14 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 11 2006, 10:11 AM)
QUOTE
by Arthur
As for the CENAN - PAO thingy.
You are WAY too Internet Savey to be thinking this was the OFFICIAL CENAN web site. It it was I believe it would end with .GOV. Look at the site, notice the "postcards" link, the link to "col o dowds mission", the Politics, the "as seen on CNN" stuff. Clearly NOT an official site. (way to UN-political correct)
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Foxx, you'll actually like this, go to the site.
http://army.firststrike.net/index.htm
and click on Damage Assessment
Takes you on a PPT slide show of the damage to the (in your mind) infamous WFC 1.
Below is a direct link to it.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
As for the CENAN - PAO thingy.
You are WAY too Internet Savey to be thinking this was the OFFICIAL CENAN web site. It it was I believe it would end with .GOV. Look at the site, notice the "postcards" link, the link to "col o dowds mission", the Politics, the "as seen on CNN" stuff. Clearly NOT an official site. (way to UN-political correct)
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Foxx, you'll actually like this, go to the site.
http://army.firststrike.net/index.htm
and click on Damage Assessment
Takes you on a PPT slide show of the damage to the (in your mind) infamous WFC 1.
Below is a direct link to it.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
Sorry, I can't open the file. Can you transcribe it? And where do you get the name Mark Wingate.
Foxx, it is the name at the start of the Power Point presentation.
Thanks reasonwhy... anything interesting there? Does it mention times places buildings etc?
It shows the perimeter wall that hit another building ( from inside the other building). For some reason he does not document anything (only pictures ).
World Trade Center Event
Mark Wingate
Friday October 5, 2001
The end
(This is the only text in presentation)
One of the Photos:
QUOTE
by arthur
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Thanks reasonwhy for your help on that PPT doc.
Re: This Image...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten002sm.jpg
The Internet Archive... http://www.archive.org/ is like a spider crawling the web, taking snapshots of webpages it sees on a particular date, and caching that 'snapshot'. If you are looking for a newstory or other information, and the link is dead - you can plug the URL into the 'Wayback Machine' and you may be able to retrieve the information through that means... (That is IF the spider happened to crawl past while the story or information was on the web).
So I plugged in the URL to look up the CENAN PAO site and it's history.
History of site... http://army.firststrike.net/ from Internet Archives.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://army.firststrike.net/
Check out the date Feb 05, 2001...
http://web.archive.org/web/20010205163200/...irststrike.net/
and click the side menu that says Who We Are...
Does it say...
The New York District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers...tadatada.
Seems to me that this page has been set up by someone in the New York District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Here is the same page as of Sept 25 2004...
http://web.archive.org/web/20040925182052/...irststrike.net/
Does it look like the same CENAN PAO page we have been discussing?
So... It seems arthur is probably right that someone in the CENAN PAO has set up their own private website and posted photos of the WTC damages to that site. I wish he had put a contact listing on the page.
This photo certainly has me intrigued. Anyone have any ideas how to track down this Wingate?
I've tried every method I know. The domain name is not registered so that's a dead end.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 11 2006, 11:08 AM)
QUOTE
by arthur
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Thanks reasonwhy for your help on that PPT doc.
Re: This Image...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten002sm.jpg
The Internet Archive... http://www.archive.org/ is like a spider crawling the web, taking snapshots of webpages it sees on a particular date, and caching that 'snapshot'. If you are looking for a newstory or other information, and the link is dead - you can plug the URL into the 'Wayback Machine' and you may be able to retrieve the information through that means... (That is IF the spider happened to crawl past while the story or information was on the web).
So I plugged in the URL to look up the CENAN PAO site and it's history.
History of site... http://army.firststrike.net/ from Internet Archives.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://army.firststrike.net/
Check out the date Feb 05, 2001...
http://web.archive.org/web/20010205163200/...irststrike.net/
and click the side menu that says Who We Are...
Does it say...
The New York District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers...tadatada.
Seems to me that this page has been set up by someone in the New York District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Here is the same page as of Sept 25 2004...
http://web.archive.org/web/20040925182052/...irststrike.net/
Does it look like the same CENAN PAO page we have been discussing?
So... It seems arthur is probably right that someone in the CENAN PAO has set up their own private website and posted photos of the WTC damages to that site. I wish he had put a contact listing on the page.
This photo certainly has me intrigued. Anyone have any ideas how to track down this Wingate?
I've tried every method I know. The domain name is not registered so that's a dead end.
I think this is him:
Contact:
Mark Wingate
CEMVN-PM-W
New Orleans, LA
504-862-2512
Mark.R.Wingate@mvn02.usace.army.mil
Page last updated: July 29, 2005
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pd/projsasp/...t.asp?Where=PAS
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 09:07 AM)
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
So these fires:
Resulted in this?
Now explain to me again how these buildings were designed to fall down like teepees.
Statistically this post is conclusive proof of demolition.
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
So these fires:
Resulted in this?
Now explain to me again how these buildings were designed to fall down like teepees.
Statistically this post is conclusive proof of demolition.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 08:54 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 08:48 AM)
Drats! The end of my post should have come out like this:
Unless somebody can show me a VIDEO wherein this "core" emerges, from within a settling dust cloud, for at least a fraction of a second, and then the collapse continues, such that the total time for collapse was 14 seconds or so, I will assume that this photo is a FAKE.*
* Either that, or a building behind the collapsed tower that was previously not visible. Obviously, this possibility should be extremely easy to check.
That is the best we can do.
Who is "we"?
If you are implying that this is the best that anybody can do, why would that not bother you deeply? The world's attention was focussed on these two building, in a city of millions, and with cheap video cams being ubiquitous.
We've got a photo which doesn't appear to match any video I've ever seen.
I would hope that not just I, but also nobody else, take this photo seriously unless it can be corroborated with video.
Similar arguments apply to the concretcore.com photo of collapses with fireballs coming out of the collapse zone.
We is you and I, citizens seeking truth.
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering. The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Free fall, or something very close to must be explained. A core with 47 steel columns cannot be demolished within the event we saw. Explosions needed to cut the core columns would totally change the character of the visual event.
Concrete can be fractured with relatively small amounts of explosives if they are optimally placed and distributed.
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering. The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Do you have information on the experts?
Unless somebody can show me a VIDEO wherein this "core" emerges, from within a settling dust cloud, for at least a fraction of a second, and then the collapse continues, such that the total time for collapse was 14 seconds or so, I will assume that this photo is a FAKE.*
* Either that, or a building behind the collapsed tower that was previously not visible. Obviously, this possibility should be extremely easy to check.
That is the best we can do.
Who is "we"?
If you are implying that this is the best that anybody can do, why would that not bother you deeply? The world's attention was focussed on these two building, in a city of millions, and with cheap video cams being ubiquitous.
We've got a photo which doesn't appear to match any video I've ever seen.
I would hope that not just I, but also nobody else, take this photo seriously unless it can be corroborated with video.
Similar arguments apply to the concretcore.com photo of collapses with fireballs coming out of the collapse zone.
We is you and I, citizens seeking truth.
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering. The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Free fall, or something very close to must be explained. A core with 47 steel columns cannot be demolished within the event we saw. Explosions needed to cut the core columns would totally change the character of the visual event.
Concrete can be fractured with relatively small amounts of explosives if they are optimally placed and distributed.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 11:55 AM)
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering. The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Do you have information on the experts?
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 11 2006, 05:26 AM)
I have to agree with you on that score metamars. If the photo were true we should have seen such a situation from other perspectives.
If the photo WERE true????
If someone was going to FAKE a photo, why fake one like that?????
So you have good insight into why somebody would produce one type of fake as opposed to another, do you? Why don't you demonstrate your keen insight by actually posting your "faker motivation theory"?
You don't need to know the motivation for fakery to expose it'd dubious products. If you imply otherwise, then you first.
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is.
Your PARANOIA knows no bounds.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
Why do you think there HAD to be videos?
Are you serious? THE HEIGHT OF THE FAKE CORE/PERIMETER (TAKE YOUR PICK, SINCE IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF IT'S A FAKE) IS ABOUT HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWERS!! AND THE VIDEOS SOMEHOW MISSED IT? ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THAT THERE WERE VIDEOS OF THE WTC COLLAPSES?
Even you wouldn't be that foolish. So explain to us how there's "photos" of a section of a tower about 500 feet tall, but we can't see it in any of the videos.
Frankly, I'm surprised that even a pope like yourself would attempt such a bamboozling.
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work?
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
The event was over an hour old by then, how many people up that morning and who had video cameras had exhausted either tape and/or batteries by then?
A reasonable question. The implied answer - "none" - is too silly to be taken seriously.
Need I also point out that all the video-graphers and photographers who got tired and/or bored of photographing/videographic the buildings with the "raging" smoke, managed to muster the strength and interest to start filming again once the buildings began to collapse??
For the collapse to have progressed to the point indicated in the fake photo implies that there were at least 7 seconds to point and shoot. Or to remove from a carrying case, point and shoot.
Metamars,
What YOU ignore is that the dust cloud made pictures taken at just slightly different times and at different angles look VERY different. So for a corroborating Video it wouldn't be from the subset of all the video cameras operating in NY that morning. It would be from the subset of video cameras operating within those same few seconds and quite POSSIBLY from only pretty much the same angle and FINALLY, be available to the PUBLIC.
You PROCLAIM this picture to be a FAKE though you have NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS A FAKE.
What's more, you can't even come up with a good reason that it WOULD be faked.
That is the workings of a PARANOID mind.
SEEK HELP.
There are other pictures that SHOW that parts of the core of one of the towers remain standing. Pictures that are MUCH clearer than this one. No one needed a "fuzzy fake" to make the case.
Arthur
Sorry, I can't open the file. Can you transcribe it? And where do you get the name Mark Wingate.
Can anyone else have a look at this ppt file and give me a rundown on it?
Thanks
My link was bad (something about the way this forum automaticallay truncates names of long links)
I fixed it here:
Damage Assessment
I don't know if there is anything you will find interesting, except some views from the damaged area in WFC 1.
Oh, and the fact that some of the damage appears to be caused by a part of the Core columns, not just the perimeter tree we see hanging from the outside.
Arthur
next in the war on terror.....
france
canada
brazil
iran
north korea(australia, lol)
etfuttincetera
Is this a POLL???
Put my vote in for CANADA.
Arthur
If the photo WERE true????
If someone was going to FAKE a photo, why fake one like that?????
So you have good insight into why somebody would produce one type of fake as opposed to another, do you? Why don't you demonstrate your keen insight by actually posting your "faker motivation theory"?
You don't need to know the motivation for fakery to expose it'd dubious products. If you imply otherwise, then you first.
QUOTE
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is.
Your PARANOIA knows no bounds.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is. Your PARANOIA knows no bounds. |
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
Why do you think there HAD to be videos?
Are you serious? THE HEIGHT OF THE FAKE CORE/PERIMETER (TAKE YOUR PICK, SINCE IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF IT'S A FAKE) IS ABOUT HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWERS!! AND THE VIDEOS SOMEHOW MISSED IT? ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THAT THERE WERE VIDEOS OF THE WTC COLLAPSES?
Even you wouldn't be that foolish. So explain to us how there's "photos" of a section of a tower about 500 feet tall, but we can't see it in any of the videos.
Frankly, I'm surprised that even a pope like yourself would attempt such a bamboozling.
QUOTE
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work?
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work? |
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
The event was over an hour old by then, how many people up that morning and who had video cameras had exhausted either tape and/or batteries by then?
A reasonable question. The implied answer - "none" - is too silly to be taken seriously.
Need I also point out that all the video-graphers and photographers who got tired and/or bored of photographing/videographic the buildings with the "raging" smoke, managed to muster the strength and interest to start filming again once the buildings began to collapse??
For the collapse to have progressed to the point indicated in the fake photo implies that there were at least 7 seconds to point and shoot. Or to remove from a carrying case, point and shoot.
Metamars,
What YOU ignore is that the dust cloud made pictures taken at just slightly different times and at different angles look VERY different. So for a corroborating Video it wouldn't be from the subset of all the video cameras operating in NY that morning. It would be from the subset of video cameras operating within those same few seconds and quite POSSIBLY from only pretty much the same angle and FINALLY, be available to the PUBLIC.
You PROCLAIM this picture to be a FAKE though you have NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS A FAKE.
What's more, you can't even come up with a good reason that it WOULD be faked.
That is the workings of a PARANOID mind.
SEEK HELP.
There are other pictures that SHOW that parts of the core of one of the towers remain standing. Pictures that are MUCH clearer than this one. No one needed a "fuzzy fake" to make the case.
Arthur
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 11 2006, 03:41 AM)
Surely, those of you who support the idea that NIST is an honest arm of the government, and would never even consider disseminating false information will have an answer for this.
However, Christophera... I do not see any evidence that can be deduced from the above photos that the interior box columns were not there.
I see about 4 of the massive 1 x 3 outer central core columns and what appears to be the reinforced concrete lower section of a stairwell (that some survivors were pulled out of, IIRC).
But the above photos only show a very small section of the central core. The other massive 1 x 3 columns are also gone. I think what we are looking at in the above photos is just a small corner section of the core, so we shouldn't really expect to see any of the other 'interior' core columns in that small area. If you look again at the schematic diagram provided by NIST the photos are only revealing whats left of one small corner of that. So, although the above photos DO show that NIST is ... shall we say...'mistaken' on this point, they don't really support the concrete core theory... (as far as I can see).
I consider it a given that there was a massive concrete / steel structure at the base of the buildings - The underground areas were all lined with steel reinforced concrete and I suspect that in the core area this structure was surrounding the core up to the first skylobby area. I have yet to see any real evidence that it extended any higher, although I will say that the one photo you post seems incongruous - the one after the collapse that you point to and say is the concrete core.
However IF such photo actually shows a concrete core structure, such a massive structure still standing as the dust cloud dissipates would surely have been caught from other angles or in other videos, and I have seen no evidence of that at all, which makes me sceptical of that one photo. Find some from other perspectives, in the photo video archives and you might have a chance of convincing me. Until then all this talk about concrete-core is nothing more than a red herring (to me).
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Some hold tenaciously to the theory that there were missile pods on the planes, {or that 19 evil arabs
In 1990 I watched a 2 hour documentary on 2 consecutive nights. It spent about an hour and 20 minutes detailing the core, the rebar in it or the steel adjacent to it.
The NIST diagram shows us that there should be steel core columns in the stairwell area shown below. There are no steel columns protruding from the stairwell area. If they existed there they absolutely would be seen.
The 17 foot thick figure comes from the documentary. Near the bottom are images of the WTC lobby interior. The narrow width is visable
The columns shown in the NIST diagram would be protruding from the top of the core are if they existed. Also, note the dust clouds. Unless a camera was on top of a building, the view would be obscured from almost all directions. So we may be out of luck in finding another image of this.
Additionally, the nature of what NIST dipicts, will not stand on its own. So, from that standpoint the above image is conclusive without a doubt.
The below link is to a video that was taken from the lobby. Depending on your skills at judging dimensions and proportions you may be able to see that the widest part is less than 50 feet.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/lobby.mpg
The 2 lower images are of the lobby. Your skills of estimating proportion are critical here.
Last is a link to a page which has an image (top of page) which shows the core corner (bottom image here) to be of WTC 1 and no central columns are seen.
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/
However, Christophera... I do not see any evidence that can be deduced from the above photos that the interior box columns were not there.
I see about 4 of the massive 1 x 3 outer central core columns and what appears to be the reinforced concrete lower section of a stairwell (that some survivors were pulled out of, IIRC).
But the above photos only show a very small section of the central core. The other massive 1 x 3 columns are also gone. I think what we are looking at in the above photos is just a small corner section of the core, so we shouldn't really expect to see any of the other 'interior' core columns in that small area. If you look again at the schematic diagram provided by NIST the photos are only revealing whats left of one small corner of that. So, although the above photos DO show that NIST is ... shall we say...'mistaken' on this point, they don't really support the concrete core theory... (as far as I can see).
I consider it a given that there was a massive concrete / steel structure at the base of the buildings - The underground areas were all lined with steel reinforced concrete and I suspect that in the core area this structure was surrounding the core up to the first skylobby area. I have yet to see any real evidence that it extended any higher, although I will say that the one photo you post seems incongruous - the one after the collapse that you point to and say is the concrete core.
However IF such photo actually shows a concrete core structure, such a massive structure still standing as the dust cloud dissipates would surely have been caught from other angles or in other videos, and I have seen no evidence of that at all, which makes me sceptical of that one photo. Find some from other perspectives, in the photo video archives and you might have a chance of convincing me. Until then all this talk about concrete-core is nothing more than a red herring (to me).
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Some hold tenaciously to the theory that there were missile pods on the planes, {or that 19 evil arabs
In 1990 I watched a 2 hour documentary on 2 consecutive nights. It spent about an hour and 20 minutes detailing the core, the rebar in it or the steel adjacent to it.
The NIST diagram shows us that there should be steel core columns in the stairwell area shown below. There are no steel columns protruding from the stairwell area. If they existed there they absolutely would be seen.
The 17 foot thick figure comes from the documentary. Near the bottom are images of the WTC lobby interior. The narrow width is visable
The columns shown in the NIST diagram would be protruding from the top of the core are if they existed. Also, note the dust clouds. Unless a camera was on top of a building, the view would be obscured from almost all directions. So we may be out of luck in finding another image of this.
Additionally, the nature of what NIST dipicts, will not stand on its own. So, from that standpoint the above image is conclusive without a doubt.
The below link is to a video that was taken from the lobby. Depending on your skills at judging dimensions and proportions you may be able to see that the widest part is less than 50 feet.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/lobby.mpg
The 2 lower images are of the lobby. Your skills of estimating proportion are critical here.
Last is a link to a page which has an image (top of page) which shows the core corner (bottom image here) to be of WTC 1 and no central columns are seen.
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 11 2006, 02:11 PM)
QUOTE
by Arthur
As for the CENAN - PAO thingy.
You are WAY too Internet Savey to be thinking this was the OFFICIAL CENAN web site. It it was I believe it would end with .GOV. Look at the site, notice the "postcards" link, the link to "col o dowds mission", the Politics, the "as seen on CNN" stuff. Clearly NOT an official site. (way to UN-political correct)
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Foxx, you'll actually like this, go to the site.
http://army.firststrike.net/index.htm
and click on Damage Assessment
Takes you on a PPT slide show of the damage to the (in your mind) infamous WFC 1.
Below is a direct link to it.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
As for the CENAN - PAO thingy.
You are WAY too Internet Savey to be thinking this was the OFFICIAL CENAN web site. It it was I believe it would end with .GOV. Look at the site, notice the "postcards" link, the link to "col o dowds mission", the Politics, the "as seen on CNN" stuff. Clearly NOT an official site. (way to UN-political correct)
I SUSPECT the site owner is MARK WINGATE or someone who obviously works for the CENAN and most probably in the PAO office.
Foxx, you'll actually like this, go to the site.
http://army.firststrike.net/index.htm
and click on Damage Assessment
Takes you on a PPT slide show of the damage to the (in your mind) infamous WFC 1.
Below is a direct link to it.
http://army.firststrike.net/briefings/WTC_..._Assessment.ppt
Sorry, I can't open the file. Can you transcribe it? And where do you get the name Mark Wingate.
Can anyone else have a look at this ppt file and give me a rundown on it?
Thanks
My link was bad (something about the way this forum automaticallay truncates names of long links)
I fixed it here:
Damage Assessment
I don't know if there is anything you will find interesting, except some views from the damaged area in WFC 1.
Oh, and the fact that some of the damage appears to be caused by a part of the Core columns, not just the perimeter tree we see hanging from the outside.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 11 2006, 06:06 PM)
I have not visited the forum without at least 3 disinformation team members present( Arthur,commen scence, and Shagster). Shagster after your last comments I have to add you to the team. You certainly are not trying to figure out the real reason for the collapse.
Oscillations coursing bolts to fail from stored energy from the collapse?
Agreeing with Commen Scene who doesn’t even understand the concept of torque?
Disregarding the mechanical floors and figuring the upper attached floors could somehow pancake on the lower floors?
Basically hes saying, if you disagree with the CT clowns your in the MIB.. Welcome 'Agent S'. HEHEHE!
That means Reasonwhy is a Ballchinian.
That deserves Aduo's 3 smily face laugh
Aren't you ashamed of your statements? Is the fact that this is on a stupid internet site give you the freedom to show your a$$? AMASING!
If only you could read it from another persons view. It's hysterical!!
And as an ex-drag racer I know very well the concept of torque. I have used a torque wrench on my engine to faston the heads and increased the horse power AND torque on my Buick Grand National a number of times. I'm sure it's you who are trying to get me to explain it to your dumb a$$ who doesn't know the concept. Heh!
Oscillations coursing bolts to fail from stored energy from the collapse?
Agreeing with Commen Scene who doesn’t even understand the concept of torque?
Disregarding the mechanical floors and figuring the upper attached floors could somehow pancake on the lower floors?
Basically hes saying, if you disagree with the CT clowns your in the MIB.. Welcome 'Agent S'. HEHEHE!
That means Reasonwhy is a Ballchinian.
That deserves Aduo's 3 smily face laugh
Aren't you ashamed of your statements? Is the fact that this is on a stupid internet site give you the freedom to show your a$$? AMASING!
If only you could read it from another persons view. It's hysterical!!
And as an ex-drag racer I know very well the concept of torque. I have used a torque wrench on my engine to faston the heads and increased the horse power AND torque on my Buick Grand National a number of times. I'm sure it's you who are trying to get me to explain it to your dumb a$$ who doesn't know the concept. Heh!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 01:29 PM)
next in the war on terror.....
france
canada
brazil
iran
north korea(australia, lol)
etfuttincetera
Is this a POLL???
Put my vote in for CANADA.
Arthur
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 07:45 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 09:07 AM)
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
So these fires:
Resulted in this?
Now explain to me again how these buildings were designed to fall down like teepees.
Statistically this post is conclusive proof of demolition.
Don't forget to write your peer reviewed paper on this. HAHAHA!!
This place just gets funnier every day. HEHEHE.
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering. The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Do you have information on the experts?
Don't hold your breath waiting.
If anyone is trying to muddy the CT waters it's christopher. I think hes worse for your side than we are. Heh!
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
So these fires:
Resulted in this?
Now explain to me again how these buildings were designed to fall down like teepees.
Statistically this post is conclusive proof of demolition.
Don't forget to write your peer reviewed paper on this. HAHAHA!!
This place just gets funnier every day. HEHEHE.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 11 2006, 07:58 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 11:55 AM)
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering. The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Do you have information on the experts?
Don't hold your breath waiting.
If anyone is trying to muddy the CT waters it's christopher. I think hes worse for your side than we are. Heh!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 05:23 PM)
The puffs are initiated by the buckling. Part of the puff is the fireproofing covering the perimeter columns being crushed. Some is drywall from the offices. The puffs have a light color on the lower half of the buckled east side as the collapse starts. The same dust above the buckled zone has a darker color because the soot from the fires above is mixed in with it.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 09:00 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 11 2006, 05:23 PM)
The puffs are initiated by the buckling. Part of the puff is the fireproofing covering the perimeter columns being crushed. Some is drywall from the offices. The puffs have a light color on the lower half of the buckled east side as the collapse starts. The same dust above the buckled zone has a darker color because the soot from the fires above is mixed in with it.
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
No it's not. It's from falling apart all on it's own..
but the spire has been relieved of any crushing forces from above, so what would cause the remaining core columns to buckle? (which, by the way, i don't see any of. i see a straight spire get whacked on one side by some explosive force, and then begin to tip as a straight spire, and then fall straight down.)
i know RC has a theory about it, but surprisingly, i don't agree that things were moving around much at the base. it is also clear from the debris pile photos that the towers were peeled like a banana at the base. which indicates, forces radiating predominantly outward. obviously, this is also apparent for the (ultra fine) dust cloud.
That peeling effect is from the core exploding and pushing outward on the beams between the interior box columns.
No it's not. It's from falling apart all on it's own..
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 07:55 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 08:54 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 08:48 AM)
Drats! The end of my post should have come out like this:
Unless somebody can show me a VIDEO wherein this "core" emerges, from within a settling dust cloud, for at least a fraction of a second, and then the collapse continues, such that the total time for collapse was 14 seconds or so, I will assume that this photo is a FAKE.*
* Either that, or a building behind the collapsed tower that was previously not visible. Obviously, this possibility should be extremely easy to check.
That is the best we can do.
Who is "we"?
If you are implying that this is the best that anybody can do, why would that not bother you deeply? The world's attention was focussed on these two building, in a city of millions, and with cheap video cams being ubiquitous.
We've got a photo which doesn't appear to match any video I've ever seen.
I would hope that not just I, but also nobody else, take this photo seriously unless it can be corroborated with video.
Similar arguments apply to the concretcore.com photo of collapses with fireballs coming out of the collapse zone.
Well, that is not good enough for me. This is not just a question of "absence of evidence", it's a case of contradictory evidence. (Again, I welcome anybody to prove me wrong. E.g., I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
Well, that is not good enough for me. This is not just a question of "absence of evidence", it's a case of contradictory evidence. (Again, I welcome anybody to prove me wrong. E.g., I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering.
Who are these photoshop experts? Also, as you can manipulate a picture on a pixel by pixel basis, the conclusion of "free of any sign of tampering" no longer conveys the sense of certitude that such a photo might have provided 30 years ago.
The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
Free fall, or something very close to must be explained.
It is readily agreed that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 were so close to free fall - within a few seconds - that an explanation is called for. Furthermore, the collapse of WTC 7 was so close to free fall - within less than a second - that assuming the building was not demolished, on this score alone, is foolhardy.
These considerations have nothing to do with the question of whether the photo is a fake or not. Only if the photo is known not to be a fake may it have relevance to these particular issues.
Need I add that using photos that are easily exposed as fakes do not enhance one's position, once the fakery becomes common knowledge?
A core with 47 steel columns cannot be demolished within the event we saw. Explosions needed to cut the core columns would totally change the character of the visual event.
I certainly believe that not only was WTC 7 demolished (which is a no-brainer), but also WTC 1 & 2. I have not come to any firm conclusions wrt modality, though I tend to believe that cutter charges were used as part of the process. Assuming the fireball video/photos are legitimate, I would take that as evidence that some kind of chemical explosive or incendiary agent was used. Also, the slag and pouring, red-hot liquid metal out of the side of the building is evidence some kind of agent like thermite.
I am not convinced that concrete was not used for overall structural strength of WTC 1 & 2, though I do not say that it's impossible.*
I have to confess to not having carefully read everything you've written. Even so, my overall impression is that you have not proven your claim.
Please keep in mind the difference between arguments based on certain evidence, and arguments about the validity of that evidence.
I certainly believe that not only was WTC 7 demolished (which is a no-brainer), but also WTC 1 & 2. I have not come to any firm conclusions wrt modality, though I tend to believe that cutter charges were used as part of the process. Assuming the fireball video/photos are legitimate, I would take that as evidence that some kind of chemical explosive or incendiary agent was used. Also, the slag and pouring, red-hot liquid metal out of the side of the building is evidence some kind of agent like thermite.
I am not convinced that concrete was not used for overall structural strength of WTC 1 & 2, though I do not say that it's impossible.*
I have to confess to not having carefully read everything you've written. Even so, my overall impression is that you have not proven your claim.
Please keep in mind the difference between arguments based on certain evidence, and arguments about the validity of that evidence.
Concrete can be fractured with relatively small amounts of explosives if they are optimally placed and distributed.
The presence of steel core columns is a given. Even if you can fracture a "concrete core" with just "relatively small amounts of explosives", you still have to
1) break the steel structure
2) pulverize much (most , if eye-witnessess like Gov. Pataki are to be believed.) of the concrete - an even bigger energy sink if you also need to do this to a concrete core, as well.
==========
BTW, in my discussions with my architect cousin, she pointed out that fire codes demand that escape passages such as stairwells be optimized for survivability of humans. Thus, one sometimes observes burned out buildings that have basically only stairwells which survived.
Thus, we might well expect stairwells in the core to be covered with concrete.
OTOH, from http://www.flcv.com/wtc1vict.html
I hear this explosion, like a transformer below. What the hell was that? The whole place shook. The hallway started filling up with smoke.
A woman with a red hat came out and said, ``I'm the last one out.'' We went out and into the stairwell. The first thing I noticed was that no one was coming down the stairs.
I also noticed the Sheetrock on the interior of the stairwell on his floor had been knocked off the walls so thoroughly that the steel behind it was showing. The walls are made
of four or five sheets of 5/8 inch Sheetrock, which I think is quite strong. The stairwell was dark black and it looked like it was blocked above me, although I can't see much because of the dark.
Since sheetrock <> concrete, I suppose that this line of though could imply that there was concrete surrounding both the steel stairs as well as the sheetrock. E.g., around the core, itself. I'm mostly speculating, and welcome anybody to produce further evidence, one way or another.
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering. The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Do you have information on the experts?
Don't hold your breath waiting.
If anyone is trying to muddy the CT waters it's christopher. I think hes worse for your side than we are. Heh!
Kevin Fenton is a member of Democratic Underground and he analysis was very fair and impartial. I'll try and find the thread.
Here is his member info.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...les&u_id=171024
There appears to be some experienced photoshppers here, perhaps one can analyse the image for those in doubt independantly.
BTW, you have have never explained why the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are not visible in these images.
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering. The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Do you have information on the experts?
Don't hold your breath waiting.
If anyone is trying to muddy the CT waters it's christopher. I think hes worse for your side than we are. Heh!
Unfortunately, this is the first time I agree with you. I think we need a separate thread for the concrete core hypothesis. I just see the same pictures and information posted. It kind of reminds me of someone form the official theory supporters side.
Unless somebody can show me a VIDEO wherein this "core" emerges, from within a settling dust cloud, for at least a fraction of a second, and then the collapse continues, such that the total time for collapse was 14 seconds or so, I will assume that this photo is a FAKE.*
* Either that, or a building behind the collapsed tower that was previously not visible. Obviously, this possibility should be extremely easy to check.
That is the best we can do.
Who is "we"?
If you are implying that this is the best that anybody can do, why would that not bother you deeply? The world's attention was focussed on these two building, in a city of millions, and with cheap video cams being ubiquitous.
We've got a photo which doesn't appear to match any video I've ever seen.
I would hope that not just I, but also nobody else, take this photo seriously unless it can be corroborated with video.
Similar arguments apply to the concretcore.com photo of collapses with fireballs coming out of the collapse zone.
QUOTE
We is you and I, citizens seeking truth.
Well, that is not good enough for me. This is not just a question of "absence of evidence", it's a case of contradictory evidence. (Again, I welcome anybody to prove me wrong. E.g., I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We is you and I, citizens seeking truth. |
Well, that is not good enough for me. This is not just a question of "absence of evidence", it's a case of contradictory evidence. (Again, I welcome anybody to prove me wrong. E.g., I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering.
Who are these photoshop experts? Also, as you can manipulate a picture on a pixel by pixel basis, the conclusion of "free of any sign of tampering" no longer conveys the sense of certitude that such a photo might have provided 30 years ago.
QUOTE
The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building. |
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
Free fall, or something very close to must be explained.
It is readily agreed that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 were so close to free fall - within a few seconds - that an explanation is called for. Furthermore, the collapse of WTC 7 was so close to free fall - within less than a second - that assuming the building was not demolished, on this score alone, is foolhardy.
These considerations have nothing to do with the question of whether the photo is a fake or not. Only if the photo is known not to be a fake may it have relevance to these particular issues.
Need I add that using photos that are easily exposed as fakes do not enhance one's position, once the fakery becomes common knowledge?
QUOTE
A core with 47 steel columns cannot be demolished within the event we saw. Explosions needed to cut the core columns would totally change the character of the visual event.
I certainly believe that not only was WTC 7 demolished (which is a no-brainer), but also WTC 1 & 2. I have not come to any firm conclusions wrt modality, though I tend to believe that cutter charges were used as part of the process. Assuming the fireball video/photos are legitimate, I would take that as evidence that some kind of chemical explosive or incendiary agent was used. Also, the slag and pouring, red-hot liquid metal out of the side of the building is evidence some kind of agent like thermite.
I am not convinced that concrete was not used for overall structural strength of WTC 1 & 2, though I do not say that it's impossible.*
I have to confess to not having carefully read everything you've written. Even so, my overall impression is that you have not proven your claim.
Please keep in mind the difference between arguments based on certain evidence, and arguments about the validity of that evidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
A core with 47 steel columns cannot be demolished within the event we saw. Explosions needed to cut the core columns would totally change the character of the visual event. |
I certainly believe that not only was WTC 7 demolished (which is a no-brainer), but also WTC 1 & 2. I have not come to any firm conclusions wrt modality, though I tend to believe that cutter charges were used as part of the process. Assuming the fireball video/photos are legitimate, I would take that as evidence that some kind of chemical explosive or incendiary agent was used. Also, the slag and pouring, red-hot liquid metal out of the side of the building is evidence some kind of agent like thermite.
I am not convinced that concrete was not used for overall structural strength of WTC 1 & 2, though I do not say that it's impossible.*
I have to confess to not having carefully read everything you've written. Even so, my overall impression is that you have not proven your claim.
Please keep in mind the difference between arguments based on certain evidence, and arguments about the validity of that evidence.
Concrete can be fractured with relatively small amounts of explosives if they are optimally placed and distributed.
The presence of steel core columns is a given. Even if you can fracture a "concrete core" with just "relatively small amounts of explosives", you still have to
1) break the steel structure
2) pulverize much (most , if eye-witnessess like Gov. Pataki are to be believed.) of the concrete - an even bigger energy sink if you also need to do this to a concrete core, as well.
==========
BTW, in my discussions with my architect cousin, she pointed out that fire codes demand that escape passages such as stairwells be optimized for survivability of humans. Thus, one sometimes observes burned out buildings that have basically only stairwells which survived.
Thus, we might well expect stairwells in the core to be covered with concrete.
OTOH, from http://www.flcv.com/wtc1vict.html
QUOTE
I hear this explosion, like a transformer below. What the hell was that? The whole place shook. The hallway started filling up with smoke.
A woman with a red hat came out and said, ``I'm the last one out.'' We went out and into the stairwell. The first thing I noticed was that no one was coming down the stairs.
I also noticed the Sheetrock on the interior of the stairwell on his floor had been knocked off the walls so thoroughly that the steel behind it was showing. The walls are made
of four or five sheets of 5/8 inch Sheetrock, which I think is quite strong. The stairwell was dark black and it looked like it was blocked above me, although I can't see much because of the dark.
Since sheetrock <> concrete, I suppose that this line of though could imply that there was concrete surrounding both the steel stairs as well as the sheetrock. E.g., around the core, itself. I'm mostly speculating, and welcome anybody to produce further evidence, one way or another.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 08:45 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 11 2006, 07:58 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 11:55 AM)
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering. The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Do you have information on the experts?
Don't hold your breath waiting.
If anyone is trying to muddy the CT waters it's christopher. I think hes worse for your side than we are. Heh!
Kevin Fenton is a member of Democratic Underground and he analysis was very fair and impartial. I'll try and find the thread.
Here is his member info.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...les&u_id=171024
There appears to be some experienced photoshppers here, perhaps one can analyse the image for those in doubt independantly.
BTW, you have have never explained why the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are not visible in these images.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 12:45 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 11 2006, 07:58 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 11:55 AM)
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering. The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Do you have information on the experts?
Don't hold your breath waiting.
If anyone is trying to muddy the CT waters it's christopher. I think hes worse for your side than we are. Heh!
Unfortunately, this is the first time I agree with you. I think we need a separate thread for the concrete core hypothesis. I just see the same pictures and information posted. It kind of reminds me of someone form the official theory supporters side.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 07:55 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 08:54 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 08:48 AM)
Drats! The end of my post should have come out like this:
Unless somebody can show me a VIDEO wherein this "core" emerges, from within a settling dust cloud, for at least a fraction of a second, and then the collapse continues, such that the total time for collapse was 14 seconds or so, I will assume that this photo is a FAKE.*
* Either that, or a building behind the collapsed tower that was previously not visible. Obviously, this possibility should be extremely easy to check.
That is the best we can do.
Who is "we"?
If you are implying that this is the best that anybody can do, why would that not bother you deeply? The world's attention was focussed on these two building, in a city of millions, and with cheap video cams being ubiquitous.
We've got a photo which doesn't appear to match any video I've ever seen.
I would hope that not just I, but also nobody else, take this photo seriously unless it can be corroborated with video.
Similar arguments apply to the concretcore.com photo of collapses with fireballs coming out of the collapse zone.
Well, that is not good enough for me. This is not just a question of "absence of evidence", it's a case of contradictory evidence. (Again, I welcome anybody to prove me wrong. E.g., I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
Well, that is not good enough for me. This is not just a question of "absence of evidence", it's a case of contradictory evidence. (Again, I welcome anybody to prove me wrong. E.g., I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering.
Who are these photoshop experts? Also, as you can manipulate a picture on a pixel by pixel basis, the conclusion of "free of any sign of tampering" no longer conveys the sense of certitude that such a photo might have provided 30 years ago.
The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
Free fall, or something very close to must be explained.
It is readily agreed that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 were so close to free fall - within a few seconds - that an explanation is called for. Furthermore, the collapse of WTC 7 was so close to free fall - within less than a second - that assuming the building was not demolished, on this score alone, is foolhardy.
These considerations have nothing to do with the question of whether the photo is a fake or not. Only if the photo is known not to be a fake may it have relevance to these particular issues.
Need I add that using photos that are easily exposed as fakes do not enhance one's position, once the fakery becomes common knowledge?
A core with 47 steel columns cannot be demolished within the event we saw. Explosions needed to cut the core columns would totally change the character of the visual event.
I certainly believe that not only was WTC 7 demolished (which is a no-brainer), but also WTC 1 & 2. I have not come to any firm conclusions wrt modality, though I tend to believe that cutter charges were used as part of the process. Assuming the fireball video/photos are legitimate, I would take that as evidence that some kind of chemical explosive or incendiary agent was used. Also, the slag and pouring, red-hot liquid metal out of the side of the building is evidence some kind of agent like thermite.
I am not convinced that concrete was not used for overall structural strength of WTC 1 & 2, though I do not say that it's impossible.*
I have to confess to not having carefully read everything you've written. Even so, my overall impression is that you have not proven your claim.
Please keep in mind the difference between arguments based on certain evidence, and arguments about the validity of that evidence.
I certainly believe that not only was WTC 7 demolished (which is a no-brainer), but also WTC 1 & 2. I have not come to any firm conclusions wrt modality, though I tend to believe that cutter charges were used as part of the process. Assuming the fireball video/photos are legitimate, I would take that as evidence that some kind of chemical explosive or incendiary agent was used. Also, the slag and pouring, red-hot liquid metal out of the side of the building is evidence some kind of agent like thermite.
I am not convinced that concrete was not used for overall structural strength of WTC 1 & 2, though I do not say that it's impossible.*
I have to confess to not having carefully read everything you've written. Even so, my overall impression is that you have not proven your claim.
Please keep in mind the difference between arguments based on certain evidence, and arguments about the validity of that evidence.
Concrete can be fractured with relatively small amounts of explosives if they are optimally placed and distributed.
The presence of steel core columns is a given. Even if you can fracture a "concrete core" with just "relatively small amounts of explosives", you still have to
1) break the steel structure
2) pulverize much (most , if eye-witnessess like Gov. Pataki are to be believed.) of the concrete - an even bigger energy sink if you also need to do this to a concrete core, as well.
==========
BTW, in my discussions with my architect cousin, she pointed out that fire codes demand that escape passages such as stairwells be optimized for survivability of humans. Thus, one sometimes observes burned out buildings that have basically only stairwells which survived.
Thus, we might well expect stairwells in the core to be covered with concrete.
OTOH, from http://www.flcv.com/wtc1vict.html
I hear this explosion, like a transformer below. What the hell was that? The whole place shook. The hallway started filling up with smoke.
A woman with a red hat came out and said, ``I'm the last one out.'' We went out and into the stairwell. The first thing I noticed was that no one was coming down the stairs.
I also noticed the Sheetrock on the interior of the stairwell on his floor had been knocked off the walls so thoroughly that the steel behind it was showing. The walls are made
of four or five sheets of 5/8 inch Sheetrock, which I think is quite strong. The stairwell was dark black and it looked like it was blocked above me, although I can't see much because of the dark.
Since sheetrock <> concrete, I suppose that this line of though could imply that there was concrete surrounding both the steel stairs as well as the sheetrock. E.g., around the core, itself. I'm mostly speculating, and welcome anybody to produce further evidence, one way or another.
metamars wrote
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
I was referring to the lower dense dust clouds blocking photographyu from the ground at this moment in the demolition.
BTW, you have have never explained why the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are not visible in these images.
How do you know they are not? The columns have obviously been cut.
Unless somebody can show me a VIDEO wherein this "core" emerges, from within a settling dust cloud, for at least a fraction of a second, and then the collapse continues, such that the total time for collapse was 14 seconds or so, I will assume that this photo is a FAKE.*
* Either that, or a building behind the collapsed tower that was previously not visible. Obviously, this possibility should be extremely easy to check.
That is the best we can do.
Who is "we"?
If you are implying that this is the best that anybody can do, why would that not bother you deeply? The world's attention was focussed on these two building, in a city of millions, and with cheap video cams being ubiquitous.
We've got a photo which doesn't appear to match any video I've ever seen.
I would hope that not just I, but also nobody else, take this photo seriously unless it can be corroborated with video.
Similar arguments apply to the concretcore.com photo of collapses with fireballs coming out of the collapse zone.
QUOTE
We is you and I, citizens seeking truth.
Well, that is not good enough for me. This is not just a question of "absence of evidence", it's a case of contradictory evidence. (Again, I welcome anybody to prove me wrong. E.g., I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We is you and I, citizens seeking truth. |
Well, that is not good enough for me. This is not just a question of "absence of evidence", it's a case of contradictory evidence. (Again, I welcome anybody to prove me wrong. E.g., I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
Photoshop experts have examined this image and declared it free of any sign of tampering.
Who are these photoshop experts? Also, as you can manipulate a picture on a pixel by pixel basis, the conclusion of "free of any sign of tampering" no longer conveys the sense of certitude that such a photo might have provided 30 years ago.
QUOTE
The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building.
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The dust clouds look as though they might obscure any photos from any place except the top of a building. |
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
Free fall, or something very close to must be explained.
It is readily agreed that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 were so close to free fall - within a few seconds - that an explanation is called for. Furthermore, the collapse of WTC 7 was so close to free fall - within less than a second - that assuming the building was not demolished, on this score alone, is foolhardy.
These considerations have nothing to do with the question of whether the photo is a fake or not. Only if the photo is known not to be a fake may it have relevance to these particular issues.
Need I add that using photos that are easily exposed as fakes do not enhance one's position, once the fakery becomes common knowledge?
QUOTE
A core with 47 steel columns cannot be demolished within the event we saw. Explosions needed to cut the core columns would totally change the character of the visual event.
I certainly believe that not only was WTC 7 demolished (which is a no-brainer), but also WTC 1 & 2. I have not come to any firm conclusions wrt modality, though I tend to believe that cutter charges were used as part of the process. Assuming the fireball video/photos are legitimate, I would take that as evidence that some kind of chemical explosive or incendiary agent was used. Also, the slag and pouring, red-hot liquid metal out of the side of the building is evidence some kind of agent like thermite.
I am not convinced that concrete was not used for overall structural strength of WTC 1 & 2, though I do not say that it's impossible.*
I have to confess to not having carefully read everything you've written. Even so, my overall impression is that you have not proven your claim.
Please keep in mind the difference between arguments based on certain evidence, and arguments about the validity of that evidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
A core with 47 steel columns cannot be demolished within the event we saw. Explosions needed to cut the core columns would totally change the character of the visual event. |
I certainly believe that not only was WTC 7 demolished (which is a no-brainer), but also WTC 1 & 2. I have not come to any firm conclusions wrt modality, though I tend to believe that cutter charges were used as part of the process. Assuming the fireball video/photos are legitimate, I would take that as evidence that some kind of chemical explosive or incendiary agent was used. Also, the slag and pouring, red-hot liquid metal out of the side of the building is evidence some kind of agent like thermite.
I am not convinced that concrete was not used for overall structural strength of WTC 1 & 2, though I do not say that it's impossible.*
I have to confess to not having carefully read everything you've written. Even so, my overall impression is that you have not proven your claim.
Please keep in mind the difference between arguments based on certain evidence, and arguments about the validity of that evidence.
Concrete can be fractured with relatively small amounts of explosives if they are optimally placed and distributed.
The presence of steel core columns is a given. Even if you can fracture a "concrete core" with just "relatively small amounts of explosives", you still have to
1) break the steel structure
2) pulverize much (most , if eye-witnessess like Gov. Pataki are to be believed.) of the concrete - an even bigger energy sink if you also need to do this to a concrete core, as well.
==========
BTW, in my discussions with my architect cousin, she pointed out that fire codes demand that escape passages such as stairwells be optimized for survivability of humans. Thus, one sometimes observes burned out buildings that have basically only stairwells which survived.
Thus, we might well expect stairwells in the core to be covered with concrete.
OTOH, from http://www.flcv.com/wtc1vict.html
QUOTE
I hear this explosion, like a transformer below. What the hell was that? The whole place shook. The hallway started filling up with smoke.
A woman with a red hat came out and said, ``I'm the last one out.'' We went out and into the stairwell. The first thing I noticed was that no one was coming down the stairs.
I also noticed the Sheetrock on the interior of the stairwell on his floor had been knocked off the walls so thoroughly that the steel behind it was showing. The walls are made
of four or five sheets of 5/8 inch Sheetrock, which I think is quite strong. The stairwell was dark black and it looked like it was blocked above me, although I can't see much because of the dark.
Since sheetrock <> concrete, I suppose that this line of though could imply that there was concrete surrounding both the steel stairs as well as the sheetrock. E.g., around the core, itself. I'm mostly speculating, and welcome anybody to produce further evidence, one way or another.
metamars wrote
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
I was referring to the lower dense dust clouds blocking photographyu from the ground at this moment in the demolition.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 01:08 PM)
BTW, you have have never explained why the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are not visible in these images.
How do you know they are not? The columns have obviously been cut.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 08:04 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 11 2006, 05:26 AM)
I have to agree with you on that score metamars. If the photo were true we should have seen such a situation from other perspectives.
If the photo WERE true????
If someone was going to FAKE a photo, why fake one like that?????
So you have good insight into why somebody would produce one type of fake as opposed to another, do you? Why don't you demonstrate your keen insight by actually posting your "faker motivation theory"?
You don't need to know the motivation for fakery to expose it'd dubious products. If you imply otherwise, then you first.
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is.
Your PARANOIA knows no bounds.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
Why do you think there HAD to be videos?
Are you serious? THE HEIGHT OF THE FAKE CORE/PERIMETER (TAKE YOUR PICK, SINCE IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF IT'S A FAKE) IS ABOUT HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWERS!! AND THE VIDEOS SOMEHOW MISSED IT? ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THAT THERE WERE VIDEOS OF THE WTC COLLAPSES?
Even you wouldn't be that foolish. So explain to us how there's "photos" of a section of a tower about 500 feet tall, but we can't see it in any of the videos.
Frankly, I'm surprised that even a pope like yourself would attempt such a bamboozling.
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work?
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
The event was over an hour old by then, how many people up that morning and who had video cameras had exhausted either tape and/or batteries by then?
A reasonable question. The implied answer - "none" - is too silly to be taken seriously.
Need I also point out that all the video-graphers and photographers who got tired and/or bored of photographing/videographic the buildings with the "raging" smoke, managed to muster the strength and interest to start filming again once the buildings began to collapse??
For the collapse to have progressed to the point indicated in the fake photo implies that there were at least 7 seconds to point and shoot. Or to remove from a carrying case, point and shoot.
Metamars,
A remnant of a building 500 feet tall, surrounded, in its upper section, by as insignificant a dust cloud as that observed in the photo, is going to be visible from all reasonable angles.
You make it sound like only dumb luck would lead to the existence of relevant videos after collapse ensued.
I say, "Nonsense".
The fact that existing video doesn't support your point of view doesn't help your case, but makes it even more dubious.
A remnant of a building 500 feet tall, surrounded, in its upper section, by as insignificant a dust cloud as that observed in the photo, is going to be visible from all reasonable angles.
You make it sound like only dumb luck would lead to the existence of relevant videos after collapse ensued.
I say, "Nonsense".
The fact that existing video doesn't support your point of view doesn't help your case, but makes it even more dubious.
You PROCLAIM this picture to be a FAKE though you have NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS A FAKE.
What's more, you can't even come up with a good reason that it WOULD be faked.
That is the workings of a PARANOID mind.
SEEK HELP.
There are other pictures that SHOW that parts of the core of one of the towers remain standing. Pictures that are MUCH clearer than this one. No one needed a "fuzzy fake" to make the case.
Arthur
What you mean is "evidence that I (adoucette) accept as such". The photo and contradictory videos themselves are the evidence.
If you went into a courtoom with the photo, and contradictory (but accepted) video, do you think the judge or jury would buy your Fairy Tale interpretation of the photo?
If the photo WERE true????
If someone was going to FAKE a photo, why fake one like that?????
So you have good insight into why somebody would produce one type of fake as opposed to another, do you? Why don't you demonstrate your keen insight by actually posting your "faker motivation theory"?
You don't need to know the motivation for fakery to expose it'd dubious products. If you imply otherwise, then you first.
QUOTE
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is.
Your PARANOIA knows no bounds.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is. Your PARANOIA knows no bounds. |
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
Why do you think there HAD to be videos?
Are you serious? THE HEIGHT OF THE FAKE CORE/PERIMETER (TAKE YOUR PICK, SINCE IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF IT'S A FAKE) IS ABOUT HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWERS!! AND THE VIDEOS SOMEHOW MISSED IT? ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THAT THERE WERE VIDEOS OF THE WTC COLLAPSES?
Even you wouldn't be that foolish. So explain to us how there's "photos" of a section of a tower about 500 feet tall, but we can't see it in any of the videos.
Frankly, I'm surprised that even a pope like yourself would attempt such a bamboozling.
QUOTE
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work?
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work? |
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
The event was over an hour old by then, how many people up that morning and who had video cameras had exhausted either tape and/or batteries by then?
A reasonable question. The implied answer - "none" - is too silly to be taken seriously.
Need I also point out that all the video-graphers and photographers who got tired and/or bored of photographing/videographic the buildings with the "raging" smoke, managed to muster the strength and interest to start filming again once the buildings began to collapse??
For the collapse to have progressed to the point indicated in the fake photo implies that there were at least 7 seconds to point and shoot. Or to remove from a carrying case, point and shoot.
Metamars,
QUOTE
What YOU ignore is that the dust cloud made pictures taken at just slightly different times and at different angles look VERY different. So for a corroborating Video it wouldn't be from the subset of all the video cameras operating in NY that morning. It would be from the subset of video cameras operating within those same few seconds and quite POSSIBLY from only pretty much the same angle and FINALLY, be available to the PUBLIC.
A remnant of a building 500 feet tall, surrounded, in its upper section, by as insignificant a dust cloud as that observed in the photo, is going to be visible from all reasonable angles.
You make it sound like only dumb luck would lead to the existence of relevant videos after collapse ensued.
I say, "Nonsense".
The fact that existing video doesn't support your point of view doesn't help your case, but makes it even more dubious.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What YOU ignore is that the dust cloud made pictures taken at just slightly different times and at different angles look VERY different. So for a corroborating Video it wouldn't be from the subset of all the video cameras operating in NY that morning. It would be from the subset of video cameras operating within those same few seconds and quite POSSIBLY from only pretty much the same angle and FINALLY, be available to the PUBLIC. |
A remnant of a building 500 feet tall, surrounded, in its upper section, by as insignificant a dust cloud as that observed in the photo, is going to be visible from all reasonable angles.
You make it sound like only dumb luck would lead to the existence of relevant videos after collapse ensued.
I say, "Nonsense".
The fact that existing video doesn't support your point of view doesn't help your case, but makes it even more dubious.
You PROCLAIM this picture to be a FAKE though you have NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS A FAKE.
What's more, you can't even come up with a good reason that it WOULD be faked.
That is the workings of a PARANOID mind.
SEEK HELP.
There are other pictures that SHOW that parts of the core of one of the towers remain standing. Pictures that are MUCH clearer than this one. No one needed a "fuzzy fake" to make the case.
Arthur
What you mean is "evidence that I (adoucette) accept as such". The photo and contradictory videos themselves are the evidence.
If you went into a courtoom with the photo, and contradictory (but accepted) video, do you think the judge or jury would buy your Fairy Tale interpretation of the photo?
OK Are you ready for my professional computer modeling of the collapse! He it goes!
_____
|//--\\|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|*-<-< Airplane hits
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|<-Where did the wieght/Load/Stress-
|_|_|_|<-of these columns which used to go-
|_|_|_|<-straight down go?
|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|<- Up Here (Hat truss)
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_| ^<^<- And up here (Columns above impact point-
|_|_|_| going up to the hat truss)
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
Collapse
______
///-\\\//
/_// /^/
\ /=| |\
\=|=|=/
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
______
///-\\//_
//=/=//\\
\=|_|=//
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
///-\\-/
\=|_|=//_
\=|_|=// \
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
//-\\-/
\=|_|=//_
\=|_|=// \
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
//-\\-/\__
\=|_|=//_=\\
\=|_|=// \\-\
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
//|_|\\/_=\\\__
\=|_|=// \\-\
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
- -|_|
--|_|
/--|_|\\/_=\\\__
|=|_|=// \\-\/_=/
|=|_|=|
HEHEHE!!! Theres your computer modeling! HEHE
_____
|//--\\|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|*-<-< Airplane hits
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|<-Where did the wieght/Load/Stress-
|_|_|_|<-of these columns which used to go-
|_|_|_|<-straight down go?
|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|<- Up Here (Hat truss)
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_| ^<^<- And up here (Columns above impact point-
|_|_|_| going up to the hat truss)
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
Collapse
______
///-\\\//
/_// /^/
\ /=| |\
\=|=|=/
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
______
///-\\//_
//=/=//\\
\=|_|=//
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
///-\\-/
\=|_|=//_
\=|_|=// \
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
//-\\-/
\=|_|=//_
\=|_|=// \
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
//-\\-/\__
\=|_|=//_=\\
\=|_|=// \\-\
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
//|_|\\/_=\\\__
\=|_|=// \\-\
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
- -|_|
--|_|
/--|_|\\/_=\\\__
|=|_|=// \\-\/_=/
|=|_|=|
HEHEHE!!! Theres your computer modeling! HEHE
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 09:26 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 08:04 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 02:25 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 11 2006, 05:26 AM)
I have to agree with you on that score metamars. If the photo were true we should have seen such a situation from other perspectives.
If the photo WERE true????
If someone was going to FAKE a photo, why fake one like that?????
So you have good insight into why somebody would produce one type of fake as opposed to another, do you? Why don't you demonstrate your keen insight by actually posting your "faker motivation theory"?
You don't need to know the motivation for fakery to expose it'd dubious products. If you imply otherwise, then you first.
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is.
Your PARANOIA knows no bounds.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
Why do you think there HAD to be videos?
Are you serious? THE HEIGHT OF THE FAKE CORE/PERIMETER (TAKE YOUR PICK, SINCE IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF IT'S A FAKE) IS ABOUT HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWERS!! AND THE VIDEOS SOMEHOW MISSED IT? ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THAT THERE WERE VIDEOS OF THE WTC COLLAPSES?
Even you wouldn't be that foolish. So explain to us how there's "photos" of a section of a tower about 500 feet tall, but we can't see it in any of the videos.
Frankly, I'm surprised that even a pope like yourself would attempt such a bamboozling.
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work?
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
The event was over an hour old by then, how many people up that morning and who had video cameras had exhausted either tape and/or batteries by then?
A reasonable question. The implied answer - "none" - is too silly to be taken seriously.
Need I also point out that all the video-graphers and photographers who got tired and/or bored of photographing/videographic the buildings with the "raging" smoke, managed to muster the strength and interest to start filming again once the buildings began to collapse??
For the collapse to have progressed to the point indicated in the fake photo implies that there were at least 7 seconds to point and shoot. Or to remove from a carrying case, point and shoot.
Metamars,
A remnant of a building 500 feet tall, surrounded, in its upper section, by as insignificant a dust cloud as that observed in the photo, is going to be visible from all reasonable angles.
You make it sound like only dumb luck would lead to the existence of relevant videos after collapse ensued.
I say, "Nonsense".
The fact that existing video doesn't support your point of view doesn't help your case, but makes it even more dubious.
A remnant of a building 500 feet tall, surrounded, in its upper section, by as insignificant a dust cloud as that observed in the photo, is going to be visible from all reasonable angles.
You make it sound like only dumb luck would lead to the existence of relevant videos after collapse ensued.
I say, "Nonsense".
The fact that existing video doesn't support your point of view doesn't help your case, but makes it even more dubious.
You PROCLAIM this picture to be a FAKE though you have NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS A FAKE.
What's more, you can't even come up with a good reason that it WOULD be faked.
That is the workings of a PARANOID mind.
SEEK HELP.
There are other pictures that SHOW that parts of the core of one of the towers remain standing. Pictures that are MUCH clearer than this one. No one needed a "fuzzy fake" to make the case.
Arthur
What you mean is "evidence that I (adoucette) accept as such". The photo and contradictory videos themselves are the evidence.
If you went into a courtoom with the photo, and contradictory (but accepted) video, do you think the judge or jury would buy your Fairy Tale interpretation of the photo?
Dumb luck would be needed to to find those videos IF they exist on the net. Not every video from every angle and every person is on the net. The most videos I seem to find are on CT sites and they aren't many of those either.
I'll ask you. Can you find more videos taken from that angle which dont have the columns in question? Same diference. I think we are both going to have problems finding such videos. It doesn't mean they don't exist. An absence of evidence isn't evidence. You still haven't made the case for it being faked. All you've made is an appeal to paranoia.
If the photo WERE true????
If someone was going to FAKE a photo, why fake one like that?????
So you have good insight into why somebody would produce one type of fake as opposed to another, do you? Why don't you demonstrate your keen insight by actually posting your "faker motivation theory"?
You don't need to know the motivation for fakery to expose it'd dubious products. If you imply otherwise, then you first.
QUOTE
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is.
Your PARANOIA knows no bounds.
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Its not like its great PROOF of anything since none of us can be quite sure WHAT it is. Your PARANOIA knows no bounds. |
It's not "PARANOIA" to call a spade a spade, or a fake a fake.
Why do you think there HAD to be videos?
Are you serious? THE HEIGHT OF THE FAKE CORE/PERIMETER (TAKE YOUR PICK, SINCE IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF IT'S A FAKE) IS ABOUT HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWERS!! AND THE VIDEOS SOMEHOW MISSED IT? ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THAT THERE WERE VIDEOS OF THE WTC COLLAPSES?
Even you wouldn't be that foolish. So explain to us how there's "photos" of a section of a tower about 500 feet tall, but we can't see it in any of the videos.
Frankly, I'm surprised that even a pope like yourself would attempt such a bamboozling.
QUOTE
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work?
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
It was a work day. Do you take your video camera to work? |
Say, now, there's a real strong argument!!
Let's ignore all the people who live in NYC, the newscrews from all over the world, the fact that NYC is a center for media. Let's also ignore the fact that stores that sell video and regular cameras are all over the place.
The event was over an hour old by then, how many people up that morning and who had video cameras had exhausted either tape and/or batteries by then?
A reasonable question. The implied answer - "none" - is too silly to be taken seriously.
Need I also point out that all the video-graphers and photographers who got tired and/or bored of photographing/videographic the buildings with the "raging" smoke, managed to muster the strength and interest to start filming again once the buildings began to collapse??
For the collapse to have progressed to the point indicated in the fake photo implies that there were at least 7 seconds to point and shoot. Or to remove from a carrying case, point and shoot.
Metamars,
QUOTE
What YOU ignore is that the dust cloud made pictures taken at just slightly different times and at different angles look VERY different. So for a corroborating Video it wouldn't be from the subset of all the video cameras operating in NY that morning. It would be from the subset of video cameras operating within those same few seconds and quite POSSIBLY from only pretty much the same angle and FINALLY, be available to the PUBLIC.
A remnant of a building 500 feet tall, surrounded, in its upper section, by as insignificant a dust cloud as that observed in the photo, is going to be visible from all reasonable angles.
You make it sound like only dumb luck would lead to the existence of relevant videos after collapse ensued.
I say, "Nonsense".
The fact that existing video doesn't support your point of view doesn't help your case, but makes it even more dubious.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What YOU ignore is that the dust cloud made pictures taken at just slightly different times and at different angles look VERY different. So for a corroborating Video it wouldn't be from the subset of all the video cameras operating in NY that morning. It would be from the subset of video cameras operating within those same few seconds and quite POSSIBLY from only pretty much the same angle and FINALLY, be available to the PUBLIC. |
A remnant of a building 500 feet tall, surrounded, in its upper section, by as insignificant a dust cloud as that observed in the photo, is going to be visible from all reasonable angles.
You make it sound like only dumb luck would lead to the existence of relevant videos after collapse ensued.
I say, "Nonsense".
The fact that existing video doesn't support your point of view doesn't help your case, but makes it even more dubious.
You PROCLAIM this picture to be a FAKE though you have NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS A FAKE.
What's more, you can't even come up with a good reason that it WOULD be faked.
That is the workings of a PARANOID mind.
SEEK HELP.
There are other pictures that SHOW that parts of the core of one of the towers remain standing. Pictures that are MUCH clearer than this one. No one needed a "fuzzy fake" to make the case.
Arthur
What you mean is "evidence that I (adoucette) accept as such". The photo and contradictory videos themselves are the evidence.
If you went into a courtoom with the photo, and contradictory (but accepted) video, do you think the judge or jury would buy your Fairy Tale interpretation of the photo?
Dumb luck would be needed to to find those videos IF they exist on the net. Not every video from every angle and every person is on the net. The most videos I seem to find are on CT sites and they aren't many of those either.
I'll ask you. Can you find more videos taken from that angle which dont have the columns in question? Same diference. I think we are both going to have problems finding such videos. It doesn't mean they don't exist. An absence of evidence isn't evidence. You still haven't made the case for it being faked. All you've made is an appeal to paranoia.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 05:04 PM)
Well, that is not good enough for me.
I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
So, EVEN SHOWN CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, you are "still a little bit suspicious"
I see that in your opinion the photo has now gone from "could be" to "IS" a fake.
So metamars, is the photo I posted that PROVES there was no PYROCLASTIC CLOUD, you know, the one of the Ground Zero tree with GREEN leaves.
Is THAT fake as well???
Oh, and Metamars, you haven't shown any video which contradicts that still photo.
Arthur
I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
So, EVEN SHOWN CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, you are "still a little bit suspicious"
I see that in your opinion the photo has now gone from "could be" to "IS" a fake.
So metamars, is the photo I posted that PROVES there was no PYROCLASTIC CLOUD, you know, the one of the Ground Zero tree with GREEN leaves.
Is THAT fake as well???
Oh, and Metamars, you haven't shown any video which contradicts that still photo.
Arthur
Hey Arthur, did you and Tucker Carlson go to the same school of shilling. Your tactics are remarkably the same.
Dr Jones censored on MSNBC
If this is the truth you are spewing, why do you try so hard to dismiss valid observations?
Dr Jones added footage
Dr Jones censored on MSNBC
If this is the truth you are spewing, why do you try so hard to dismiss valid observations?
Dr Jones added footage
Those pictures of collapses and Fires have ALL been discussed and NOT ONE is relevant to the WTC collapse.
You can dismiss EVERY ONE that did not have a plane run into it or a large building damage it.
You can dismiss EVERY ONE that had firefighting efforts
You can dismiss EVERY ONE that is not of the same general STEEL construction with Spray on Insulation
Thus you can dismiss them all
So once again:
Arthur
PS: If you are complaining that I didn't repost those irrelevant pictures ONE MORE TIME, then you are just a MORON, because, unlike CENSORING, the pictures are available to all just by hitting the 'back' button on their browser.
You can dismiss EVERY ONE that did not have a plane run into it or a large building damage it.
You can dismiss EVERY ONE that had firefighting efforts
You can dismiss EVERY ONE that is not of the same general STEEL construction with Spray on Insulation
Thus you can dismiss them all
So once again:
Arthur
PS: If you are complaining that I didn't repost those irrelevant pictures ONE MORE TIME, then you are just a MORON, because, unlike CENSORING, the pictures are available to all just by hitting the 'back' button on their browser.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 08:45 PM)
Don't hold your breath waiting.
If anyone is trying to muddy the CT waters it's christopher. I think hes worse for your side than we are. Heh!
You don't seem to have figured out yet that you are a benefit to "our side". By all means, please keep ranting.
If anyone is trying to muddy the CT waters it's christopher. I think hes worse for your side than we are. Heh!
You don't seem to have figured out yet that you are a benefit to "our side". By all means, please keep ranting.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 09:39 PM)
OK Are you ready for my professional computer modeling of the collapse! He it goes!
_____
|//--\\|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|*-<-< Airplane hits
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|<-Where did the wieght/Load/Stress-
|_|_|_|<-of these columns which used to go-
|_|_|_|<-straight down go?
|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|<- Up Here (Hat truss)
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_| ^<^<- And up here (Columns above impact point-
|_|_|_| going up to the hat truss)
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
Collapse
______
///-\\\//
/_// /^/
\ /=| |\
\=|=|=/
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
______
///-\\//_
//=/=//\\
\=|_|=//
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
///-\\-/
\=|_|=//_
\=|_|=// \
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
//-\\-/
\=|_|=//_
\=|_|=// \
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
//-\\-/\__
\=|_|=//_=\\
\=|_|=// \\-\
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
//|_|\\/_=\\\__
\=|_|=// \\-\
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
- -|_|
--|_|
/--|_|\\/_=\\\__
|=|_|=// \\-\/_=/
|=|_|=|
HEHEHE!!! Theres your computer modeling! HEHE
[QUOTE]
Don't you feel better now CS? All that lying and I knew all you could come up with was something similar to this.
_____
|//--\\|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|*-<-< Airplane hits
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|<-Where did the wieght/Load/Stress-
|_|_|_|<-of these columns which used to go-
|_|_|_|<-straight down go?
|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
|//--\\|<- Up Here (Hat truss)
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_| ^<^<- And up here (Columns above impact point-
|_|_|_| going up to the hat truss)
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
Collapse
______
///-\\\//
/_// /^/
\ /=| |\
\=|=|=/
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
______
///-\\//_
//=/=//\\
\=|_|=//
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
_____
///-\\-/
\=|_|=//_
\=|_|=// \
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
//-\\-/
\=|_|=//_
\=|_|=// \
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
//-\\-/\__
\=|_|=//_=\\
\=|_|=// \\-\
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
|_|_|_|
//|_|\\/_=\\\__
\=|_|=// \\-\
\=|_|=/
|=|_|=|
- -|_|
--|_|
/--|_|\\/_=\\\__
|=|_|=// \\-\/_=/
|=|_|=|
HEHEHE!!! Theres your computer modeling! HEHE
[QUOTE]
Don't you feel better now CS? All that lying and I knew all you could come up with was something similar to this.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 07:45 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 09:07 AM)
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
So these fires:
Resulted in this?
Now explain to me again how these buildings were designed to fall down like teepees.
Statistically this post is conclusive proof of demolition.
[QUOTE]
The only thing explained was reports of creaking and groaning. Is that your final paper?
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
So these fires:
Resulted in this?
Now explain to me again how these buildings were designed to fall down like teepees.
Statistically this post is conclusive proof of demolition.
[QUOTE]
The only thing explained was reports of creaking and groaning. Is that your final paper?
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 11:28 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 07:45 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 09:07 AM)
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
So these fires:
Resulted in this?
Now explain to me again how these buildings were designed to fall down like teepees.
Statistically this post is conclusive proof of demolition.
The only thing explained was reports of creaking and groaning. Is that your final paper?
No, this is the paper which already passed peer review is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
I SHOWED YOU MINE, NOW SHOW ME YOURS.
BTW, you have have never explained why the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are not visible in these images.
How do you know they are not? The columns have obviously been cut.
They are obviously not visible so may not exist. If you cannot show they existed, you cannot ever prove they've been cut.
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
So these fires:
Resulted in this?
Now explain to me again how these buildings were designed to fall down like teepees.
Statistically this post is conclusive proof of demolition.
QUOTE
The only thing explained was reports of creaking and groaning. Is that your final paper?
No, this is the paper which already passed peer review is...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove it's hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "Theory of intelligent design" except in christian web sites there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
I SHOWED YOU MINE, NOW SHOW ME YOURS.
Hmmmm, it looks like they only considered one hypothosis.
That's odd, seems like there could be more scenarios.
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
I'm not seeing a whole lot on WTC 7???
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
I'm pretty sure they had the time to give us a definitive answer on the collapse of WTC 7!?!?!?!
That's odd, seems like there could be more scenarios.
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
I'm not seeing a whole lot on WTC 7???
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
I'm pretty sure they had the time to give us a definitive answer on the collapse of WTC 7!?!?!?!
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...03rd%20clip.mpg
Thanks for the link, Scott, there is a wealth of info on that site you mentioned.
This is a very interesting segment showing good detail of the collapse.
I'll talk through what I see happening and maybe anyone who wants to can chip in, but it is all becoming very much clearer. The whole thing is difficult to see and the times that I will give can only be approximate but if you run the video back and forward you will see what I mean.
The start shows both towers but side by side with no gap between. Note the darker horizontal bands (storeys) for height reference because the camera zooms in and out. Collapse is initiated above the line and is accompanied by an expulsion of smoke, debris etc. Almost immediately afterwards two vertical lines of charges run down the walls adjacent to the corners. These charges disconnect the spandrel plates attaching the wall columns to the corner columns (and possibly the floor to corner column connectons although I'm not sure about this) serving to isolate the corner columns as one vertical section.
The collapse front passes beyond this point and about 5 - 6 seconds the corner section becomes visible, standing alone, then tips over inwards before becoming disconnected at its pivot at a lower point and dropping straight down. It disappears at about 9 - 10 seconds.
The core appears from the cloud after about 4-5 seconds, with its top resembling a stepped pyramid. It is difficult to see because it is partly behind the standing tower and of course the cloud, but appears to stay standing until the camera zooms out so far as to be unable to say with any certainty.
After 18 - 20 seconds, another, still vertical column becomes visible, seeming to protrude from the dark building in the foreground. This at first appears to be the same corner but is not quite in line so it must be the adjacent corner.
The corners were always going to be the awkward bits for the demolition crew because they confer stability. Taking these out with eight vertical lines of timed charges divides the perimeter into four unstable walls and four unstable pillars.
Other charges are initiated after the first front and these serve to weaken the walls so they break into manageable sections which are seen falling outwards, although also presumably inwards.
There can be very few more obvious clues to demolition. Surely?
Gordon.
Thanks for the link, Scott, there is a wealth of info on that site you mentioned.
This is a very interesting segment showing good detail of the collapse.
I'll talk through what I see happening and maybe anyone who wants to can chip in, but it is all becoming very much clearer. The whole thing is difficult to see and the times that I will give can only be approximate but if you run the video back and forward you will see what I mean.
The start shows both towers but side by side with no gap between. Note the darker horizontal bands (storeys) for height reference because the camera zooms in and out. Collapse is initiated above the line and is accompanied by an expulsion of smoke, debris etc. Almost immediately afterwards two vertical lines of charges run down the walls adjacent to the corners. These charges disconnect the spandrel plates attaching the wall columns to the corner columns (and possibly the floor to corner column connectons although I'm not sure about this) serving to isolate the corner columns as one vertical section.
The collapse front passes beyond this point and about 5 - 6 seconds the corner section becomes visible, standing alone, then tips over inwards before becoming disconnected at its pivot at a lower point and dropping straight down. It disappears at about 9 - 10 seconds.
The core appears from the cloud after about 4-5 seconds, with its top resembling a stepped pyramid. It is difficult to see because it is partly behind the standing tower and of course the cloud, but appears to stay standing until the camera zooms out so far as to be unable to say with any certainty.
After 18 - 20 seconds, another, still vertical column becomes visible, seeming to protrude from the dark building in the foreground. This at first appears to be the same corner but is not quite in line so it must be the adjacent corner.
The corners were always going to be the awkward bits for the demolition crew because they confer stability. Taking these out with eight vertical lines of timed charges divides the perimeter into four unstable walls and four unstable pillars.
Other charges are initiated after the first front and these serve to weaken the walls so they break into manageable sections which are seen falling outwards, although also presumably inwards.
There can be very few more obvious clues to demolition. Surely?
Gordon.
I remember getting a call from the, uh, dentist, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the tooth, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of gum structure, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and we made that decision to pull and then we watched the tooth collapse.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 11 2006, 09:16 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 01:08 PM)
BTW, you have have never explained why the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are not visible in these images.
How do you know they are not? The columns have obviously been cut.
They are obviously not visible so may not exist. If you cannot show they existed, you cannot ever prove they've been cut.
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 11:28 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 11 2006, 07:45 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 09:07 AM)
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
So these fires:
Resulted in this?
Now explain to me again how these buildings were designed to fall down like teepees.
Statistically this post is conclusive proof of demolition.
[QUOTE]
The only thing explained was reports of creaking and groaning. Is that your final paper?
I guess I'll just keep reposting this too...
Show me a picture of another building build like the towers which fell from an earthquake like the ones in your photo
You're no different than the republicans who were sucked by the UN presentation on WMD.
This photo best illustrates my point...
Show me another building built like this which collapsed on it's side. Apples with apples please...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=67233
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/7735-4/framed-tube.jpg
Framed tube construction principle: load-bearing external walls stiffened by the floors to form a torsionally rigid tube
13 Load-bearing external wall
17 Core box column
20 Floor slab
Note that the buildings are stiffened by the composite steel-concrete floors. The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.
==> NOTE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FLOORS.
THE WHITE AREA IS FLOOR. THE GRAY AREA IS ELEVATOR SHAFTS.
Image from Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, 1978. This book contains some of the only architectural diagrams of WTC1 and WTC2 available to the public, as the actual blueprints are under legal lock and key
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/7753-3/floor-plan.gif
==> NOTE THAT THE AREAS WITH AN "X" THROUGH THEM ARE ELEVATOR SHAFTS OR OTHER MECH OPENINGS. NOTE HOW MUCH OF THE CENTRAL CORE IS ELEVATOR SHAFTS. WHILE THERE ARE TWO MECHANICAL FLOORS, THE LARGER EXPRESS ELEVATORS RUN THROUGH THESE FLOORS AND OVERLAP WITH THE LOCAL ELEVATORS, THUS AT NO TIME ARE THERE LESS THAN 11 SHAFTS THAT ARE CONTINUOUS OR OVERLAPPING FROM THE TOP FIRE FLOORS TO THE BASEMENT.
Note 2- This is a layout of a lower floor, there aren't that many shafts on the impact floors. The NIST document does show how many there are though.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/9081-2/site1099_001.jpg
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
* 47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
* Abundantly cross-braced
* Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
* Anchored directly to bedrock
* Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
==> SIZE OF COLUMNS AT BASE IS IRRELEVANT (WELL EXCEPT TO THE CD'ERS WHO THINK THEY WERE CUT WITH THERMITE.
THE CORE HAD MINIMAL DIAGONAL CROSS BRACING. THE FEW DIAGONALS YOU SEE ARE THE CRANE SUPPORTS.
THE ABILITY OF THE CORE TO SUPPORT ITSELF CONTRADICTS THE EARLIER STATEMENT THAT The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.. CONSIDERING THEY NEVER BUILT MORE THAN WHAT YOU SEE ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL, THE FIRST STATEMENT IS MORE APT TO BE TRUE.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6064-4/mage6.jpg
Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.
Reports on the number of core columns vary from 44 to 47. The exact arrangement of the columns is not known due to the secrecy of detailed engineering drawings of the towers. It is clear from photographs, such as the one below, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced.
==>THIS LAST PARAGRAPH MAY HAVE BEEN TRUE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BUT THE NUMBER OF CORE COLUMNS IS KNOWN, AS ARE THE SIZES AND TYPE OF STEEL THEY WERE MADE OUT OF. NOTE THE ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE THE READER THAT THEY CORE COLUMNS WERE ABUNDANTLY CROSS BRACED, BUT THERE ACTUALLY IS NO DIAGONAL CROSS BRACING, ONLY HORIZONTAL.ermore, you completely ignore the physical damage to WTC7 that was reported. You ignore the fireman reports of creaking and groaning noises coming from WtC 7 from the immediate post-tower collapse time period and that they werte very wary of the condidtion of the building from that early point on.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=67236
I don't know how many times I have to say this,
It's not one solid block like a concrete apartment building. Is it??? Is it a concrete block??? Answer the question. Until you get this simple but important fact in your head you wont "get it."
It can't for the same reasons the top part of a 110 level stack of dominos can't fall over in a block. They are many seperate pieces. It CAN'T stay in one piece.
IT NEVER WAS ONE PIECE!
Like the dominos in a stack they are perfectly fine until they are tilted. The columns connections failed easily after the building tilted. They were never ment to sustain a load on an angle. Surlly you understand something so simple...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=68471
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
Didn't collapse:
So these fires:
Resulted in this?
Now explain to me again how these buildings were designed to fall down like teepees.
Statistically this post is conclusive proof of demolition.
[QUOTE]
The only thing explained was reports of creaking and groaning. Is that your final paper?
I guess I'll just keep reposting this too...
Show me a picture of another building build like the towers which fell from an earthquake like the ones in your photo
You're no different than the republicans who were sucked by the UN presentation on WMD.
This photo best illustrates my point...
Show me another building built like this which collapsed on it's side. Apples with apples please...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=67233
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/7735-4/framed-tube.jpg
Framed tube construction principle: load-bearing external walls stiffened by the floors to form a torsionally rigid tube
13 Load-bearing external wall
17 Core box column
20 Floor slab
Note that the buildings are stiffened by the composite steel-concrete floors. The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.
==> NOTE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FLOORS.
THE WHITE AREA IS FLOOR. THE GRAY AREA IS ELEVATOR SHAFTS.
Image from Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, 1978. This book contains some of the only architectural diagrams of WTC1 and WTC2 available to the public, as the actual blueprints are under legal lock and key
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/7753-3/floor-plan.gif
==> NOTE THAT THE AREAS WITH AN "X" THROUGH THEM ARE ELEVATOR SHAFTS OR OTHER MECH OPENINGS. NOTE HOW MUCH OF THE CENTRAL CORE IS ELEVATOR SHAFTS. WHILE THERE ARE TWO MECHANICAL FLOORS, THE LARGER EXPRESS ELEVATORS RUN THROUGH THESE FLOORS AND OVERLAP WITH THE LOCAL ELEVATORS, THUS AT NO TIME ARE THERE LESS THAN 11 SHAFTS THAT ARE CONTINUOUS OR OVERLAPPING FROM THE TOP FIRE FLOORS TO THE BASEMENT.
Note 2- This is a layout of a lower floor, there aren't that many shafts on the impact floors. The NIST document does show how many there are though.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/9081-2/site1099_001.jpg
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
* 47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
* Abundantly cross-braced
* Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
* Anchored directly to bedrock
* Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
==> SIZE OF COLUMNS AT BASE IS IRRELEVANT (WELL EXCEPT TO THE CD'ERS WHO THINK THEY WERE CUT WITH THERMITE.
THE CORE HAD MINIMAL DIAGONAL CROSS BRACING. THE FEW DIAGONALS YOU SEE ARE THE CRANE SUPPORTS.
THE ABILITY OF THE CORE TO SUPPORT ITSELF CONTRADICTS THE EARLIER STATEMENT THAT The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.. CONSIDERING THEY NEVER BUILT MORE THAN WHAT YOU SEE ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL, THE FIRST STATEMENT IS MORE APT TO BE TRUE.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6064-4/mage6.jpg
Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.
Reports on the number of core columns vary from 44 to 47. The exact arrangement of the columns is not known due to the secrecy of detailed engineering drawings of the towers. It is clear from photographs, such as the one below, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced.
==>THIS LAST PARAGRAPH MAY HAVE BEEN TRUE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BUT THE NUMBER OF CORE COLUMNS IS KNOWN, AS ARE THE SIZES AND TYPE OF STEEL THEY WERE MADE OUT OF. NOTE THE ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE THE READER THAT THEY CORE COLUMNS WERE ABUNDANTLY CROSS BRACED, BUT THERE ACTUALLY IS NO DIAGONAL CROSS BRACING, ONLY HORIZONTAL.ermore, you completely ignore the physical damage to WTC7 that was reported. You ignore the fireman reports of creaking and groaning noises coming from WtC 7 from the immediate post-tower collapse time period and that they werte very wary of the condidtion of the building from that early point on.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=67236
I don't know how many times I have to say this,
It's not one solid block like a concrete apartment building. Is it??? Is it a concrete block??? Answer the question. Until you get this simple but important fact in your head you wont "get it."
It can't for the same reasons the top part of a 110 level stack of dominos can't fall over in a block. They are many seperate pieces. It CAN'T stay in one piece.
IT NEVER WAS ONE PIECE!
Like the dominos in a stack they are perfectly fine until they are tilted. The columns connections failed easily after the building tilted. They were never ment to sustain a load on an angle. Surlly you understand something so simple...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=68471
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 11:50 PM)
Hmmmm, it looks like they only considered one hypothosis.
That's odd, seems like there could be more scenarios.
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
I'm not seeing a whole lot on WTC 7???
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
I'm pretty sure they had the time to give us a definitive answer on the collapse of WTC 7!?!?!?!
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
AND YOU STILL DON'T HAVE ONE PAPER WHICH PASSED PEER REVIEW WHICH SUPPOSTS EVEN THE TOWER 1 & 2 CD! HAHAHAH!!!
That's odd, seems like there could be more scenarios.
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
I'm not seeing a whole lot on WTC 7???
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
I'm pretty sure they had the time to give us a definitive answer on the collapse of WTC 7!?!?!?!
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
AND YOU STILL DON'T HAVE ONE PAPER WHICH PASSED PEER REVIEW WHICH SUPPOSTS EVEN THE TOWER 1 & 2 CD! HAHAHAH!!!
The pointed spire appears to be a corner section isolated from floors and adjacent columns. Someone mentioned that it was in the right place for a corner but couldn't be because they were connected and staggered. The twin lines of corner charges would isolate the corner in just this manner. It has not as yet become disconnected at its base.
Regarding the falling core?, the question which should be addressed regards the manner in which it fell. Whether it should have fallen or nor is open to question, but where did the horizontal bracing go? While some parts remain upright other large straight lengths are falling away. They have become disconnected from each other but show little or no sign of distortion along their length. Is this likely? What caused them to diconnect from each other and into lengths but did not distort them?
Their whole sorry tale is coming apart like an old suitcase.
Gordon.
Regarding the falling core?, the question which should be addressed regards the manner in which it fell. Whether it should have fallen or nor is open to question, but where did the horizontal bracing go? While some parts remain upright other large straight lengths are falling away. They have become disconnected from each other but show little or no sign of distortion along their length. Is this likely? What caused them to diconnect from each other and into lengths but did not distort them?
Their whole sorry tale is coming apart like an old suitcase.
Gordon.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 12:20 AM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 11:50 PM)
Hmmmm, it looks like they only considered one hypothosis.
That's odd, seems like there could be more scenarios.
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
I'm not seeing a whole lot on WTC 7???
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
I'm pretty sure they had the time to give us a definitive answer on the collapse of WTC 7!?!?!?!
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
AND YOU STILL DON'T HAVE ONE PAPER WHICH PASSED PEER REVIEW WHICH SUPPOSTS EVEN THE TOWER 1 & 2 CD! HAHAHAH!!!
i sense you have no heart or REAL concern for the scope of the problem, 'LIBERAL', HAHAHAHAHA!
fcukhead.
120,000 is just getting started.
wait for it.
That's odd, seems like there could be more scenarios.
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
I'm not seeing a whole lot on WTC 7???
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
I'm pretty sure they had the time to give us a definitive answer on the collapse of WTC 7!?!?!?!
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
AND YOU STILL DON'T HAVE ONE PAPER WHICH PASSED PEER REVIEW WHICH SUPPOSTS EVEN THE TOWER 1 & 2 CD! HAHAHAH!!!
i sense you have no heart or REAL concern for the scope of the problem, 'LIBERAL', HAHAHAHAHA!
fcukhead.
120,000 is just getting started.
wait for it.
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 11:56 PM)
Is it just me or maybe somebody doesn't want to look into different hypothesis?
Jones censored
It's just you because that hypothesis has been refutted by many. Even people in his own university!!!
Critics
Some critics have claimed that Jones's analysis is similar to that of other researchers which they have disputed in the past, including claims regarding photographic evidence of demolition charges, the claim that no major persistent fires were visible at WTC7, and what they say are selectively edited quotes from Bill Manning [4]and Stephen Gregory.
A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[5] The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." [6]
Jones replied to the critique on December the 5th 2005, in the BYU NewsNet article "Censor rumors quelled"
He (Professor Jones) said he feels "a bit awkward" that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through. "My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval," Jones said. "The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate." Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
Hes a con man...
Jones censored
It's just you because that hypothesis has been refutted by many. Even people in his own university!!!
Critics
Some critics have claimed that Jones's analysis is similar to that of other researchers which they have disputed in the past, including claims regarding photographic evidence of demolition charges, the claim that no major persistent fires were visible at WTC7, and what they say are selectively edited quotes from Bill Manning [4]and Stephen Gregory.
A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[5] The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." [6]
Jones replied to the critique on December the 5th 2005, in the BYU NewsNet article "Censor rumors quelled"
He (Professor Jones) said he feels "a bit awkward" that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through. "My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval," Jones said. "The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate." Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
Hes a con man...
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 12 2006, 12:01 AM)
I remember getting a call from the, uh, dentist, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the tooth, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of gum structure, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and we made that decision to pull and then we watched the tooth collapse.
HAHAHA! Moron, that just proves our case. The dentist didn't blow your teeth up. THEY PULLED YOU TEETH OUT. AS IN "TEAM".
I remember getting a call from the, uh, dentist, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to save the tooth, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of gum structure, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and we made that decision to pull and then we blew the tooth up.
Stop helping us, we don't need it. HEHEHE!
HAHAHA! Moron, that just proves our case. The dentist didn't blow your teeth up. THEY PULLED YOU TEETH OUT. AS IN "TEAM".
I remember getting a call from the, uh, dentist, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to save the tooth, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of gum structure, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and we made that decision to pull and then we blew the tooth up.
Stop helping us, we don't need it. HEHEHE!
[QUOTE]If free fall is about 9 seconds and the building took 12-14 seconds, how is that close to free fall??? Considering the building is made of small pieces and those pieces were hit with the weight of a 30 story office building above it? The impact of each floor was like a piece of paper being hit with a brick. How much slower would a brick go if you suspend a piece of paper under it?
CS, isn't this your post from the pentagon thread?
So it's bricks not BLOCKS falling through sheets of paper?
.jpg)
The all important Hat truss is obviously falling away from the building. Once in motion...
Once it disintegrates the collapse still proceeds at an improbable rate. So CS, if the top section would have stayed parallel to the bottom floors, wouldn't that mean it would be able to transfer more of it's energy, thereby decreasing the fall time lower than the -12 seconds confirmed by the NIST report?
Patiently,looking forward to more cutting and pasting.
CS, isn't this your post from the pentagon thread?
So it's bricks not BLOCKS falling through sheets of paper?
The all important Hat truss is obviously falling away from the building. Once in motion...
Once it disintegrates the collapse still proceeds at an improbable rate. So CS, if the top section would have stayed parallel to the bottom floors, wouldn't that mean it would be able to transfer more of it's energy, thereby decreasing the fall time lower than the -12 seconds confirmed by the NIST report?
Patiently,looking forward to more cutting and pasting.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 12:25 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 12:20 AM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 11:50 PM)
Hmmmm, it looks like they only considered one hypothosis.
That's odd, seems like there could be more scenarios.
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
I'm not seeing a whole lot on WTC 7???
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
I'm pretty sure they had the time to give us a definitive answer on the collapse of WTC 7!?!?!?!
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
AND YOU STILL DON'T HAVE ONE PAPER WHICH PASSED PEER REVIEW WHICH SUPPOSTS EVEN THE TOWER 1 & 2 CD! HAHAHAH!!!
i sense you have no heart or REAL concern for the scope of the problem, 'LIBERAL', HAHAHAHAHA!
fcukhead.
120,000 is just getting started.
wait for it.
You're the one who wants the real murderer to go scott free YOU PIECE OF FU<KING SHlT. All for some fu<king political agenda. You make me sick...
You're the one who wants the real murderer to go scott free YOU PIECE OF FU<KING SHlT. All for some fu<king political agenda. You make me sick...
Schneibster is working tirelessly with OJ to track down the real murderer...
Their whole sorry tale is coming apart like an old suitcase.
Gordon.
What a steamy pile of BS.
Charges going down the side my arse.
YOU can claim your shiit don't stink, but I'm here to tell you, just because you SAY IT, don't make it smell like roses.
I was expecting more from you, but apparently you are just a FRAUD as well.
NO SCIENCE. JUST BS. And GORDON, Where's THE PAPER?????
Coming APART???? In case you haven't noticed IT IS MARCH 2006.
The Final report has been out for over 6 months and NOBODY WITH ANY CREDENTIALS HAS CHALLENGED ITS ESSENTIAL FINDINGS.
Jones and Company can't even get ANYONE to pay any attention to them.
They came out and said "the gubmint did it".
We got PROOF.
People (viewers, journalists, scientists etc) looked at their evidence and went:
YAWN
WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE A TOTAL NON-EVENT.
NO ONE BELIEVES YOUR BS
Well except for PARANOID MORONS.
I can't THINK of a BIGGER collection of IDIOTS than I have EVER seen on a SINGLE INTERNET FORUM then here.
Clown Roster:
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
That's odd, seems like there could be more scenarios.
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
I'm not seeing a whole lot on WTC 7???
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
I'm pretty sure they had the time to give us a definitive answer on the collapse of WTC 7!?!?!?!
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
AND YOU STILL DON'T HAVE ONE PAPER WHICH PASSED PEER REVIEW WHICH SUPPOSTS EVEN THE TOWER 1 & 2 CD! HAHAHAH!!!
i sense you have no heart or REAL concern for the scope of the problem, 'LIBERAL', HAHAHAHAHA!
fcukhead.
120,000 is just getting started.
wait for it.
You're the one who wants the real murderer to go scott free YOU PIECE OF FU<KING SHlT. All for some fu<king political agenda. You make me sick...
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 12 2006, 12:36 AM)
[QUOTE]If free fall is about 9 seconds and the building took 12-14 seconds, how is that close to free fall??? Considering the building is made of small pieces and those pieces were hit with the weight of a 30 story office building above it? The impact of each floor was like a piece of paper being hit with a brick. How much slower would a brick go if you suspend a piece of paper under it?
CS, isn't this your post from the pentagon thread?
So it's bricks not BLOCKS falling through sheets of paper?
The all important Hat truss is obviously falling away from the building. Once in motion...
Once it disintegrates the collapse still proceeds at an improbable rate. So CS, if the top section would have stayed parallel to the bottom floors, wouldn't that mean it would be able to transfer more of it's energy, thereby decreasing the fall time lower than the -12 seconds confirmed by the NIST report?
Patiently,looking forward to more cutting and pasting.
Yeah, that was the analogy. Here in case you missed it...
Show me a picture of another building build like the towers which fell from an earthquake like the ones in your photo
You're no different than the republicans who were sucked by the UN presentation on WMD.
This photo best illustrates my point...
Show me another building built like this which collapsed on it's side. Apples with apples please...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=67233
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/7735-4/framed-tube.jpg
Framed tube construction principle: load-bearing external walls stiffened by the floors to form a torsionally rigid tube
13 Load-bearing external wall
17 Core box column
20 Floor slab
Note that the buildings are stiffened by the composite steel-concrete floors. The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.
==> NOTE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FLOORS.
THE WHITE AREA IS FLOOR. THE GRAY AREA IS ELEVATOR SHAFTS.
Image from Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, 1978. This book contains some of the only architectural diagrams of WTC1 and WTC2 available to the public, as the actual blueprints are under legal lock and key
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/7753-3/floor-plan.gif
==> NOTE THAT THE AREAS WITH AN "X" THROUGH THEM ARE ELEVATOR SHAFTS OR OTHER MECH OPENINGS. NOTE HOW MUCH OF THE CENTRAL CORE IS ELEVATOR SHAFTS. WHILE THERE ARE TWO MECHANICAL FLOORS, THE LARGER EXPRESS ELEVATORS RUN THROUGH THESE FLOORS AND OVERLAP WITH THE LOCAL ELEVATORS, THUS AT NO TIME ARE THERE LESS THAN 11 SHAFTS THAT ARE CONTINUOUS OR OVERLAPPING FROM THE TOP FIRE FLOORS TO THE BASEMENT.
Note 2- This is a layout of a lower floor, there aren't that many shafts on the impact floors. The NIST document does show how many there are though.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/9081-2/site1099_001.jpg
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
* 47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
* Abundantly cross-braced
* Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
* Anchored directly to bedrock
* Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
==> SIZE OF COLUMNS AT BASE IS IRRELEVANT (WELL EXCEPT TO THE CD'ERS WHO THINK THEY WERE CUT WITH THERMITE.
THE CORE HAD MINIMAL DIAGONAL CROSS BRACING. THE FEW DIAGONALS YOU SEE ARE THE CRANE SUPPORTS.
THE ABILITY OF THE CORE TO SUPPORT ITSELF CONTRADICTS THE EARLIER STATEMENT THAT The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.. CONSIDERING THEY NEVER BUILT MORE THAN WHAT YOU SEE ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL, THE FIRST STATEMENT IS MORE APT TO BE TRUE.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6064-4/mage6.jpg
Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.
Reports on the number of core columns vary from 44 to 47. The exact arrangement of the columns is not known due to the secrecy of detailed engineering drawings of the towers. It is clear from photographs, such as the one below, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced.
==>THIS LAST PARAGRAPH MAY HAVE BEEN TRUE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BUT THE NUMBER OF CORE COLUMNS IS KNOWN, AS ARE THE SIZES AND TYPE OF STEEL THEY WERE MADE OUT OF. NOTE THE ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE THE READER THAT THEY CORE COLUMNS WERE ABUNDANTLY CROSS BRACED, BUT THERE ACTUALLY IS NO DIAGONAL CROSS BRACING, ONLY HORIZONTAL.ermore, you completely ignore the physical damage to WTC7 that was reported. You ignore the fireman reports of creaking and groaning noises coming from WtC 7 from the immediate post-tower collapse time period and that they werte very wary of the condidtion of the building from that early point on.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=67236
I don't know how many times I have to say this,
It's not one solid block like a concrete apartment building. Is it??? Is it a concrete block??? Answer the question. Until you get this simple but important fact in your head you wont "get it."
It can't for the same reasons the top part of a 110 level stack of dominos can't fall over in a block. They are many seperate pieces. It CAN'T stay in one piece.
IT NEVER WAS ONE PIECE!
Like the dominos in a stack they are perfectly fine until they are tilted. The columns connections failed easily after the building tilted. They were never ment to sustain a load on an angle. Surlly you understand something so simple...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=68471
CS, isn't this your post from the pentagon thread?
So it's bricks not BLOCKS falling through sheets of paper?
The all important Hat truss is obviously falling away from the building. Once in motion...
Once it disintegrates the collapse still proceeds at an improbable rate. So CS, if the top section would have stayed parallel to the bottom floors, wouldn't that mean it would be able to transfer more of it's energy, thereby decreasing the fall time lower than the -12 seconds confirmed by the NIST report?
Patiently,looking forward to more cutting and pasting.
Yeah, that was the analogy. Here in case you missed it...
Show me a picture of another building build like the towers which fell from an earthquake like the ones in your photo
You're no different than the republicans who were sucked by the UN presentation on WMD.
This photo best illustrates my point...
Show me another building built like this which collapsed on it's side. Apples with apples please...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=67233
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/7735-4/framed-tube.jpg
Framed tube construction principle: load-bearing external walls stiffened by the floors to form a torsionally rigid tube
13 Load-bearing external wall
17 Core box column
20 Floor slab
Note that the buildings are stiffened by the composite steel-concrete floors. The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.
==> NOTE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FLOORS.
THE WHITE AREA IS FLOOR. THE GRAY AREA IS ELEVATOR SHAFTS.
Image from Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, 1978. This book contains some of the only architectural diagrams of WTC1 and WTC2 available to the public, as the actual blueprints are under legal lock and key
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/7753-3/floor-plan.gif
==> NOTE THAT THE AREAS WITH AN "X" THROUGH THEM ARE ELEVATOR SHAFTS OR OTHER MECH OPENINGS. NOTE HOW MUCH OF THE CENTRAL CORE IS ELEVATOR SHAFTS. WHILE THERE ARE TWO MECHANICAL FLOORS, THE LARGER EXPRESS ELEVATORS RUN THROUGH THESE FLOORS AND OVERLAP WITH THE LOCAL ELEVATORS, THUS AT NO TIME ARE THERE LESS THAN 11 SHAFTS THAT ARE CONTINUOUS OR OVERLAPPING FROM THE TOP FIRE FLOORS TO THE BASEMENT.
Note 2- This is a layout of a lower floor, there aren't that many shafts on the impact floors. The NIST document does show how many there are though.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/9081-2/site1099_001.jpg
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
* 47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
* Abundantly cross-braced
* Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
* Anchored directly to bedrock
* Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
==> SIZE OF COLUMNS AT BASE IS IRRELEVANT (WELL EXCEPT TO THE CD'ERS WHO THINK THEY WERE CUT WITH THERMITE.
THE CORE HAD MINIMAL DIAGONAL CROSS BRACING. THE FEW DIAGONALS YOU SEE ARE THE CRANE SUPPORTS.
THE ABILITY OF THE CORE TO SUPPORT ITSELF CONTRADICTS THE EARLIER STATEMENT THAT The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.. CONSIDERING THEY NEVER BUILT MORE THAN WHAT YOU SEE ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL, THE FIRST STATEMENT IS MORE APT TO BE TRUE.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6064-4/mage6.jpg
Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.
Reports on the number of core columns vary from 44 to 47. The exact arrangement of the columns is not known due to the secrecy of detailed engineering drawings of the towers. It is clear from photographs, such as the one below, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced.
==>THIS LAST PARAGRAPH MAY HAVE BEEN TRUE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BUT THE NUMBER OF CORE COLUMNS IS KNOWN, AS ARE THE SIZES AND TYPE OF STEEL THEY WERE MADE OUT OF. NOTE THE ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE THE READER THAT THEY CORE COLUMNS WERE ABUNDANTLY CROSS BRACED, BUT THERE ACTUALLY IS NO DIAGONAL CROSS BRACING, ONLY HORIZONTAL.ermore, you completely ignore the physical damage to WTC7 that was reported. You ignore the fireman reports of creaking and groaning noises coming from WtC 7 from the immediate post-tower collapse time period and that they werte very wary of the condidtion of the building from that early point on.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=67236
I don't know how many times I have to say this,
It's not one solid block like a concrete apartment building. Is it??? Is it a concrete block??? Answer the question. Until you get this simple but important fact in your head you wont "get it."
It can't for the same reasons the top part of a 110 level stack of dominos can't fall over in a block. They are many seperate pieces. It CAN'T stay in one piece.
IT NEVER WAS ONE PIECE!
Like the dominos in a stack they are perfectly fine until they are tilted. The columns connections failed easily after the building tilted. They were never ment to sustain a load on an angle. Surlly you understand something so simple...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=68471
BRING IT GIRLS!!!!!! love the intensity. Osama must be a really good "hider"
http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater181.html
http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater181.html
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 12:43 AM)
You're the one who wants the real murderer to go scott free YOU PIECE OF FU<KING SHlT. All for some fu<king political agenda. You make me sick...
Schneibster is working tirelessly with OJ to track down the real murderer...
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 12:24 AM)
The pointed spire appears to be a corner section isolated from floors and adjacent columns. Someone mentioned that it was in the right place for a corner but couldn't be because they were connected and staggered. The twin lines of corner charges would isolate the corner in just this manner. It has not as yet become disconnected at its base.
Regarding the falling core?, the question which should be addressed regards the manner in which it fell. Whether it should have fallen or nor is open to question, but where did the horizontal bracing go? While some parts remain upright other large straight lengths are falling away. They have become disconnected from each other but show little or no sign of distortion along their length. Is this likely? What caused them to diconnect from each other and into lengths but did not distort them?
Their whole sorry tale is coming apart like an old suitcase.
Gordon.
That's not what I see at all. I see the oposite. I see you using a video which has a building hiding most of what your talking about and spinning it because it actually makes the NIST's pancaking argument. Because if the core lasted longer it could only have happened with the floors pancaking around it. Also, If the last part is the outside corner of the building it STILL argues for pancaking because the only think which YOU can see (Not me, I still see what's left of the core) if the core and a corner of the building are left then the floors pancaked. If not, what else happened to them?
Regarding the falling core?, the question which should be addressed regards the manner in which it fell. Whether it should have fallen or nor is open to question, but where did the horizontal bracing go? While some parts remain upright other large straight lengths are falling away. They have become disconnected from each other but show little or no sign of distortion along their length. Is this likely? What caused them to diconnect from each other and into lengths but did not distort them?
Their whole sorry tale is coming apart like an old suitcase.
Gordon.
That's not what I see at all. I see the oposite. I see you using a video which has a building hiding most of what your talking about and spinning it because it actually makes the NIST's pancaking argument. Because if the core lasted longer it could only have happened with the floors pancaking around it. Also, If the last part is the outside corner of the building it STILL argues for pancaking because the only think which YOU can see (Not me, I still see what's left of the core) if the core and a corner of the building are left then the floors pancaked. If not, what else happened to them?
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 11 2006, 11:50 PM)
Hmmmm, it looks like they only considered one hypothosis.
That's odd, seems like there could be more scenarios.
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
I'm not seeing a whole lot on WTC 7???
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
I'm pretty sure they had the time to give us a definitive answer on the collapse of WTC 7!?!?!?!
Any selectivity is really to be questioned. When simple questions are ignored repeatedly, that ignorance is to be questioned.
WTC 7 was the curtain falling on the world center stage.
That's odd, seems like there could be more scenarios.
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
I'm not seeing a whole lot on WTC 7???
Jeez, four and a half years later, two countries, 120,000+ lives, Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers, Sons and Daughters, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, State Sponsored Torture.
I'm pretty sure they had the time to give us a definitive answer on the collapse of WTC 7!?!?!?!
Any selectivity is really to be questioned. When simple questions are ignored repeatedly, that ignorance is to be questioned.
WTC 7 was the curtain falling on the world center stage.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 11 2006, 08:24 PM)
Their whole sorry tale is coming apart like an old suitcase.
Gordon.
What a steamy pile of BS.
Charges going down the side my arse.
YOU can claim your shiit don't stink, but I'm here to tell you, just because you SAY IT, don't make it smell like roses.
I was expecting more from you, but apparently you are just a FRAUD as well.
NO SCIENCE. JUST BS. And GORDON, Where's THE PAPER?????
Coming APART???? In case you haven't noticed IT IS MARCH 2006.
The Final report has been out for over 6 months and NOBODY WITH ANY CREDENTIALS HAS CHALLENGED ITS ESSENTIAL FINDINGS.
Jones and Company can't even get ANYONE to pay any attention to them.
They came out and said "the gubmint did it".
We got PROOF.
People (viewers, journalists, scientists etc) looked at their evidence and went:
YAWN
WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE A TOTAL NON-EVENT.
NO ONE BELIEVES YOUR BS
Well except for PARANOID MORONS.
I can't THINK of a BIGGER collection of IDIOTS than I have EVER seen on a SINGLE INTERNET FORUM then here.
Clown Roster:
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 10:24 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 11 2006, 05:04 PM)
Well, that is not good enough for me.
I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
So, EVEN SHOWN CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, you are "still a little bit suspicious"
I see that in your opinion the photo has now gone from "could be" to "IS" a fake.
So metamars, is the photo I posted that PROVES there was no PYROCLASTIC CLOUD, you know, the one of the Ground Zero tree with GREEN leaves.
Is THAT fake as well???
Oh, and Metamars, you haven't shown any video which contradicts that still photo.
Arthur
You either misspoke, or have misunderstood me.
The photo has gone from "could be" fake to "most likely isn't" a fake.
What photo of a tree with green leaves are you talking about?
I haven't shown any videos proving that President Bush hasn't dyed his hair phosphorescent green, during his Presidency, either. As all of us have seen videos of him, and nobody ever remarked on his green hair, I don't feel the need to post any videos of that, either.
Wrt the WTC collapses, we are not talking about a hard to see detail, but something as obvious as Presidential green hair.
Well except for PARANOID MORONS.
I can't THINK of a BIGGER collection of IDIOTS than I have EVER seen on a SINGLE INTERNET FORUM then here.
Clown Roster:
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
I just saw a video which does show (the lower part of) fireballs during collapse initiation. Assuming that the videos are legitimate, I now accept that the "fireball" photo is likely legitimate.
I would still like to see side by side comparisons of videos. (Yes, I'm still a bit suspicous.)
Actually, the dust clouds at the top of the alleged "core" are so insignificant that such a "core" should be visible from just about any reasonable angle. This was one sign that the photo is a fake.
The dark "pyroclastic" clouds at the bottom in no way obscure the top of the alleged "core".
So, EVEN SHOWN CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, you are "still a little bit suspicious"
I see that in your opinion the photo has now gone from "could be" to "IS" a fake.
So metamars, is the photo I posted that PROVES there was no PYROCLASTIC CLOUD, you know, the one of the Ground Zero tree with GREEN leaves.
Is THAT fake as well???
Oh, and Metamars, you haven't shown any video which contradicts that still photo.
Arthur
You either misspoke, or have misunderstood me.
The photo has gone from "could be" fake to "most likely isn't" a fake.
What photo of a tree with green leaves are you talking about?
I haven't shown any videos proving that President Bush hasn't dyed his hair phosphorescent green, during his Presidency, either. As all of us have seen videos of him, and nobody ever remarked on his green hair, I don't feel the need to post any videos of that, either.
Wrt the WTC collapses, we are not talking about a hard to see detail, but something as obvious as Presidential green hair.
Good luck in your new job,
Gordon.
Gordon.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:01 AM)
Well except for PARANOID MORONS.
I can't THINK of a BIGGER collection of IDIOTS than I have EVER seen on a SINGLE INTERNET FORUM then here.
Clown Roster:
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon